Top officers urge higher TRICARE fees

Author Message   Ted Lamb Senior Member Username: Ted_l Post Number: 1025 Registered: 06-2003 Posted From: 71.189.7.202 Posted on Sunday, May 09, 2010 - 03:57 pm:    >The NPR article is 2 1/2 years old. Oops . . . you are correct. My bad for not being careful. The piece I heard was on PRI's "The World" -- here is the link to that piece. http://www.theworld.org/2010/05/07/us-veterans-denied-benefits/   DeeDee Clarke Senior Member Username: Deedee Post Number: 633 Registered: 05-2004 Posted From: 67.11.180.124 Posted on Sunday, May 09, 2010 - 12:45 pm:    The NPR article is 2 1/2 years old. I believe a number of changes have been made since then.   ed williamson Advanced Member Username: Regnav Post Number: 188 Registered: 07-2009 Posted From: 76.114.109.206 Posted on Sunday, May 09, 2010 - 11:23 am:    John David: "Isolated episode"? The NPR reported "Thousands of military personnel have been dismissed for "personality disorders" since the war in Iraq began. Surely some did have pre-existing conditions, but in the case discussed, it would seem this would have been discovered in the first enlistment. A pre-existing diagnosis of anything should be looked upon with suspicion after a G.I. has been allowed to reenlist. Cowardice is about the only pre-existing condition that should be recognized after a troop has been in combat. Combat certainly magnifies all aspects of an individuals personality, but our country sent the troop into combat and must be responsible for the result.   John David Brooks Advanced Member Username: Johnb6597 Post Number: 393 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 121.55.235.75 Posted on Sunday, May 09, 2010 - 03:14 am:    Greetings, Ted: I have no doubt that some genuine PTSD cases are misdiagnosed as preexisting personality disorders, but I believe the medical community overwhelmingly gets it right more than it gets it wrong. The system isn't flawless, but I have a lot of faith in it. The only reason this story gets any traction is because it's such an isolated episode and morbid curiosity always attracts us to rarities. Where's the story on the thousands of cases we got right?   ed williamson Advanced Member Username: Regnav Post Number: 185 Registered: 07-2009 Posted From: 76.114.109.206 Posted on Sunday, May 09, 2010 - 01:00 am:    Pentagon asking Congress to hold back on generous increases in troop pay The Pentagon, not usually known for its frugality, is pleading with Congress to stop spending so much money on the troops. Through nine years of war, service members have seen a healthy rise in pay and benefits, with most of them now better compensated than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels. Congress has been so determined to take care of troops and their families that for several years running it has overruled the Pentagon and mandated more-generous pay raises than requested by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. It has also rejected attempts by the Pentagon to slow soaring health-care costs -- which Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said are "eating us alive" -- by raising co-pays or premiums. Now, Pentagon officials see fiscal calamity. (read the rest of the story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050703054. html?hpid=topnews   Ted Lamb Senior Member Username: Ted_l Post Number: 1023 Registered: 06-2003 Posted From: 71.189.7.202 Posted on Sunday, May 09, 2010 - 12:56 am:    And, here's a report from NPR that made my blood boil: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15323415 Adding insult to injury (or, further injury to injury), a servicemember discharged by reason of "personality disorder" must pay back at least a portion of any shipping-over bonus s/he received.   ed williamson Advanced Member Username: Regnav Post Number: 184 Registered: 07-2009 Posted From: 76.114.109.206 Posted on Saturday, May 08, 2010 - 11:03 pm:    David: I agree with you - it is a great life and there are many, many benefits to having served and, on the whole, we receive our due. However, the Medicare payment still sticks in my craw. It isn't the amount of the premium, it has no effect on my lifestyle, but that old principle thing (which has gotten me in deep s... many time). I admit that the prospect of free health care had absolutely nothing to do with my decision to re-up! I was having a ball, liked the lifestyle and wanted to continue. At 21 I thought I was made of steel, had a cast iron stomach and lungs made of asbestos, and nothing could ever hurt me, make me ill, or send me to the hospital so who cared about healthcare when I was 40 or 50 or older. We were promised though!   ed williamson Advanced Member Username: Regnav Post Number: 183 Registered: 07-2009 Posted From: 76.114.109.206 Posted on Saturday, May 08, 2010 - 10:54 pm:    Gates: Military spending should receive harsh scrutiny http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/96801-gates-military-spending-should- receive-harsh-scrutiny- Apart from making the case against the alternate engine for the F-35 and more C-17s, Gates raised the alarm over Congress’s resistance to increasing the premiums and co-pays on the military’s health insurance. The Pentagon has attempted in the last several years to make modest increases to the co-pays and premiums in order to bring the health care costs under control, Gates said. “Leaving aside the sacred obligation we have to America’s wounded warriors, healthcare costs are eating the Defense Department alive, rising from $19 billion a decade ago to $50 billion—roughly the entire foreign affairs and assistance budget of the State Department,” Gates said. The premiums for the health insurance program have not risen since the program was founded more than a decade ago, Gates added   xLoadmaster,M.Lewis Intermediate Member Username: Cblmelga Post Number: 145 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 76.17.91.102 Posted on Friday, May 07, 2010 - 01:48 am:    Right on,David   David Haynes Advanced Member Username: Oldcutterman Post Number: 204 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 71.0.55.122 Posted on Friday, May 07, 2010 - 12:50 am:    Are you kidding me? I don’t know if I can get what’s on my mind about this down through my fingers and to the keyboard but here goes. When I moved to where I had no military medical facilities to use, I paid Under $300.00 a year for tricare prime. When I became 65 I went on TFL. I pay for Medicare Part B. JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. I have friends that pay For Medicare Part B plus pay an insurance company a premium for supplemental and prescription drug Insurance, plus deductibles and co-pays. Since I turned 65 I have only paid $3.00 co-pays for prescriptions. On top or all of that they send me a check every month, provide commissaries and exchanges, RV parks, on base lodging and let me fly all over the world in those great big jets for free. I earned everything I get and I feel I get everything I earned. And, I am one of those that joined before 1957. David Haynes   ed williamson Advanced Member Username: Regnav Post Number: 178 Registered: 07-2009 Posted From: 76.114.109.206 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 09:07 pm:    Thank you Cherry and to Mr. C. as well. You performed an invaluable service. Agreed, we were zapped, and as much as I despise having to pay the Medicare premium, it beats the heck out of paying medical bills. We all owe you and your husband a very large debt of gratituded.   Jim Hunt Member Username: Jhunt66 Post Number: 49 Registered: 12-2009 Posted From: 66.31.169.240 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 09:04 pm:    Ed, you are spot on. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. The Chiefs of Staff are a mirror of the administration which they serve. They ceased being bona-fide advocates for troop/sailor rights when they put on that big shiny breast badge sayiing "JCS - Leave Me Alone". I knew ADM Roughhead when he served the fleet at the O-7 and O-8 grades -- a prince of a man who took care of his sailors. My son was his Flag LT when he was a CARGRU Commander and had nothing but praise for his concern for his people. Now he's at the top and is willing to sell them down the river, going along to get along. Shameful.   Cherry C. Senior Member Username: Cherry Post Number: 6313 Registered: 06-2003 Posted From: 71.163.18.160 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 08:55 pm:    My husband and I were part of the Class Action suit brought by Bud Day, seeking to get the promised lifetime no-cost medical care. This is probably the case that Ed Williamson refers to below. There were lots of "official" printed documents from the pre-1956 days promising the benefit and the law at that time confirmed it. Our group won in the first (federal district) court, and lost in the second one (federal circuit court) after the government lawyers (with unlimited funds to fight us, or course) appealed the first decision, so then we asked the Supreme Court to take the case and decide it one way or the other. While the case was winding its way through the courts, Tricare For Life was passed, but it still did not meet the criteria that all who served back then had been promised by everyone all the way up the chain of command. We even took part with a fairly large group (several hundred?) of other class members, some of whom came from as far as California for the occasion, who demonstrated one wintry February day on the steps of the Supreme Court building! Senator John Warner (R, VA) was seen walking toward the capitol building on that very day and was overheard irritatedly asking his companion, "What's the matter with those people? Don't they know we got them a good deal?" to which our response would have been that we were not supposed to pay for this, and we are being charged for Medicare every month. Well, unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided not to take the case at all, so that meant that the second court's opinion held. They had ruled that Congress has the unlimited right to change the rules any time they feel like it, and in 1956 or so they HAD changed the wording just slightly in the applicable act, so that the care was not guaranteed but only offered IF convenient. This change was retroactive so that even those who had served under the old rules now were zapped. Congress giveth, and Congress taketh away...   John David Brooks Advanced Member Username: Johnb6597 Post Number: 390 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 121.55.235.75 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 08:24 pm:    Greetings, Ed: All is forgiven. Go forth and sin no more! :-)   TR Advanced Member Username: Travel_ready Post Number: 221 Registered: 06-2003 Posted From: 74.192.161.189 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 03:26 pm:    "At least, being obsolete, we can't be canibalized." Don't be so sure ;~)   John Civick Advanced Member Username: John6412 Post Number: 264 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 32.169.120.3 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 03:23 pm:    Yes, we paid the price and sometimes dearly for the benefits we now have. I agree with Ed Williamson, being in the military for 20 plus years, our civilian counterpart bought a house at less than 5% interest and almost had it paid for ir not paid for by the time we got out of the military and had to buy a home at much higher costs all around. I can't think of any civilian who is recalled at 0300 or had 3 days notice to ship to Thailand or Vietnam. Further, they had more family stability than we who served. I would venture a guess that it all balanced out anyway and, in a hundred years it won't matter.   ed williamson Advanced Member Username: Regnav Post Number: 177 Registered: 07-2009 Posted From: 76.114.109.206 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 02:16 pm:    Hale: He is protecting his six from being fired. Unfortunately, I believe that we are becoming looked upon as obsolete "spare parts". At least, being obsolete, we can't be canibalized.   Hale Lait Senior Member Username: Norwich50 Post Number: 869 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 71.147.59.129 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 02:13 pm:    Maybe, someone out there can enlighten me. CNO is at the top of the hill i.e. there is no further promotion possible. And, when he finishes his tour, he will retire. What is he protecting? Charges are levied against the budget of the services. The less money paid for a "service" the more there is to operate the fleet. Congress in its infinite wisdom frequently ignores many needs. Watch the procurement of the new tanker. When the dollars budgeted for the procurement aren't sufficent one of the items that will be reduced or eliminated will be spare parts. The lack of spare parts is the reason for so many "hanger queens" that are canibalized for parts to keep other aircraft operating. It is sad that we often fail to properly fund projects at the onset but it is a fact of life.   ed williamson Advanced Member Username: Regnav Post Number: 176 Registered: 07-2009 Posted From: 76.114.109.206 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 02:12 pm:    Your posts, JDB, are condescending and not appreciated. Please forgive me if that was not your intention. If I remember correctly, and I think I do, a lawsuit was filed by a few retired officers saying that that prior to 1957 we were promised, and it was universally accepted, that we would receive free health care for life, after completing 20 or more years of service. I belive their suit was dismissed, but led to congress creating Tricare for Life. We do not currently pay any premiums. We are required to be enrolled in Medicare Part B. Since 1965, when I become Medicare eligible, I have had stints placed in my heart twice, had a quadruple bypass, surgery on one of my legs, been hospitalized an additional time and my late wife was in the hospital for two weeks prior to her passing. We both had various and sundry other medical services. TFL paid those costs not covered by Medicare. I have never, repeat never, paid a single penny for any medical care. We earned what we receive. Again, deferred compensation. I am sympathetic to those who must pay large premiums for health care. However, everyone has choices to make. We chose military careers and, at least between '52 and '72, were poorly compensated. We are now reaping our delayed reward.   Hale Lait Senior Member Username: Norwich50 Post Number: 868 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 71.147.59.129 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 02:10 pm:    Maybe, someone out there can enlighten me. CNO is at the top of the hill i.e. there is no further promotion possible. And, when he finishes his tour, he will retire. What is he protecting? Charges are levied against the budget of the services. The less money paid for a "service" the more there is to operate the fleet. Congress in its infinite wisdom frequently ignores many needs. Watch the procurement of the new tanker. When the dollars budgeted for the procurement aren't sufficent one of the items that will be reduced or eliminated will be spare parts. The lack of spare parts is the reason for so many "hanger queens" that are canibalized for parts to keep other aircraft operating. It is sad that we often fail to properly fund projects at the onset but it is a fact of life.   John David Brooks Advanced Member Username: Johnb6597 Post Number: 389 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 121.55.235.75 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 07:01 am:    My former father-in-law was a senior NCO Army recruiter who earned "X" number of recruiting diamonds or stars or whatever those darn things are called that high-performing recruiters earned back then and I can state with certainty that he was under specific instructions to do and say whatever it took to get young men to sign those enlistment contracts, including perpetuating the "free medical care for life" myth upon which so many lifers based their reenlistment decisions. Now, I'm sure you're right, Mike, there may have been some recruiters out there that took those promises to heart and acted in good faith to sell them to new recruits, but I know that wasn't the case with a lot of them. Regardless, we all now pay for our post-retirement military healthcare coverage, and it's naive to think or expect the premiums will remain static in perpetuity.   Mike Spengel Advanced Member Username: Mike_sp Post Number: 353 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 70.95.149.155 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 06:27 am:    JDB, I don't disagree with anything you're saying about recruiting practices in "the day," but I'll bet most of the recruiters who told us about free medical care for life actually believed it to be true. Their belief wasn't based, as you say, on a law but rather on the practice at that time. Unfortunately for us, and to the bewilderment of many, practice usually doesn't make law.   John David Brooks Advanced Member Username: Johnb6597 Post Number: 388 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 121.55.235.75 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 03:55 am:    Greetings, Ed: I hear ya, and I feel your pain...my Dad is the same era of veteran as you...and was given all the same promises...except that none of those promises were ever made in writing by the folks who are in a position to make'em: Congress and the President. There was a time (and it wasn't so long ago) when recruiters would tell you just about any lie you wanted to hear to get your signature on an enlistment contract. Once hooked, there wasn't a lie the military chain-of-command wasn't willing to tell to keep you reenlisting. In the end, there was never any basis in law for any of of those empty promises, and you were suckered. It happens. I understand your reaction to it, but it doesn't change anything...if you want quality, affordable healthcare as a military retiree, your best bet is Tricare, regardless of what they charge for premiums. Given that fact, it's unreasonable to think those premiums will remain unchanged for the balance of our natural lives.   ed williamson Advanced Member Username: Regnav Post Number: 175 Registered: 07-2009 Posted From: 76.114.109.206 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 03:43 am:    I think some of you are missing the point that we were promised, at least up until 1957 I believe, that we would have free healthcare for life if we stayed for a minimum of twenty. We are not even getting that as we are required to pay the Medicare premium. As I've said before, I view it as deferred compensation. Comparing TFL to available civilian health care plans is like comparing a grunt in the field to a draft dodger setting in an office in NYC. I suspect the good folks who spent 25 years in the "trenches" of public education received considerably higher pay, not to mention benefits, during their career than did anyone below about 0-3. Those who are so willing to pay more can simply write a check to the treasury department if that will make them feel less guilty. I earned every dime and every benefit I receive and I'll fight tooth and nail to keep them. As for what civilians have to pay; frankly my friends, I don't give a damn. They could have chosen to be in the real "trenches" and then they could enjoy our benefits. Besides, I'm not very impressed with the product being turned out by public education.   John David Brooks Advanced Member Username: Johnb6597 Post Number: 384 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 121.55.235.75 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 03:22 am:    Greetings, Mary: We're very fortunate that Tricare premiums have not increased in the last 10 years and remain lower than any other premium-based healthcare plan available to retired military senior citizens. Your observations are absolutely justified. It's unrealistic to expect the price of ANYTHING to remain unchanged over a 10-year period of time. It's not unreasonable for senior DoD officials to suggest a modest premium increase. Afterwards, if Tricare doesn't still remain the most inexpensive healthcare plan available to the retired military community, we are always free to spend our money on cheaper premiums elsewhere. Given an opportunity, most people will grouse and grumble about almost anything.   Mary Coleman Intermediate Member Username: Travelin_bone Post Number: 135 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 76.14.198.31 Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2010 - 02:27 am:    This probably won't be popular on the board, but ask around to folks out in the cold "non tri-care world" and find out what they are paying. We have friends who spent 25 years "in the trenches" of public education. They pay $1050 PER MONTH for the two of them. We were paying $850 per month before we became eligible for tri care.   ed williamson Advanced Member Username: Regnav Post Number: 172 Registered: 07-2009 Posted From: 76.114.109.206 Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 03:26 am:    Yep, once again they are protecting their jobs at the possible, probable, expense of the retired troops. I've lost all respect for the CNO. Has anyone heard of MCPON Rick West saying anything on this issue?   dinotars Senior Member Username: Dinotars Post Number: 6653 Registered: 06-2003 Posted From: 173.169.151.24 Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 01:22 am:    There opinion is to align their's with the administration's viewpoints.   John Civick Advanced Member Username: John6412 Post Number: 262 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 32.169.188.114 Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 01:14 am:    Simple, they don't use Tricare. An 0-7-10 can go to any military medical facility and the red carpet will be rolled out. Even retired, they are still general officers and receive preferred treatment above the mass hordes.   Leland Senior Member Username: Leland Post Number: 6198 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 98.218.147.237 Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 12:15 am:    I, for one, would happily trade increased Tricare fees for their upcoming O-10 retired pay. Of course, a few of us don't get O-10 retired pay. I wonder if they know that.   John Ebenhoch Member Username: Ebenhocj Post Number: 35 Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 74.76.59.168 Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2010 - 12:10 am:    http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=45188&dcn=e_gvet Top officers urge higher TRICARE fees By Otto Kreisher CongressDaily May 3, 2010 The leaders of the three naval services on Monday argued for an increase in the fees retired military personnel and their families pay for health care, something Congress has refused to approve for more than a decade. Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations; Gen. James Conway, the Marine Corps commandant; and Adm. Thad Allen, Coast Guard commandant, all complained about the soaring costs of healthcare and said increased contributions by the retirees for their TRICARE coverage is overdue.