| Submit Feedback / Report Errors | Last Updated: |
|
||||
| Return to Main Page |
|
-
28JUL09:
> Subject: FW: Have you seen this? -
Tricare For Life Battle
> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:02:32 -0400
> From: Lawrence.Kircher@dla.mil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arlan Busk [mailto:anbusk@gmail.com]
> To: All Military Retirees:
>
> This is a "Heads Up" on a battle
we are facing now and down the road
> with the new Administration. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
> already drafted proposed legislation
that would reduce our TRICARE for
> Life benefits to a system whereby
we pay deductibles and co-pays up to
> $6,301 the first year for you and
your spouse, with future years being
> indexed to increase with inflation.
>
> What can we do? The article below,
obtained from an Air Force
> Association and written by BG Bob
Clements, best describes what we can
> do. Please read it, check the links
for CBO language, and do what Bob
> says-Send this email to every Military
Retiree you know and write and
> email your Congressman often. For
those of you that might have voted for
> "Change", you should do it more than
often!
>
> TRICARE FOR LIFE'S FUTURE . . . .
TRICARE For Life was instituted to
> correct the broken promise that military
retirees would receive free
> healthcare coverage for life and
it covers the Medicare co-pay.
>
> Now a heavy assault has begun on
Veterans/Retirees' benefits to pay for
> other programs our President promised
during the campaign. And it is a
> high priority of his administration.
The one item of most interest to
> Retired Military is in Article 189.
If approved by Congress the first
> assault wave would hit in 2011 and
would hit hard. It would initiate
> cost sharing to require retirees
to pay the first $525 of medical cost
> and 50% of the next $4,725 for a
first year cost of $2,888 per person.
> It would be indexed to increase with
inflation. A reason given for this
> action (for PR effect) is "overuse"
by Retirees.
>
> For those of you who are covered
by TFL you will want to pay attention
> (Below) to what BG Bob Clements has
surfaced about the future of TFL.
>
> In any case, on page 189 of the Congressional
Budget Office report, see
> the note below on how to get to that
spot, there is a strong
> recommendation to eventually eliminate
the program, as it is too
> expensive. Just another move to slight
those of us who dedicated much of
> our adult lives to the defense of
our country.
>
> Strongly recommend that you contact
your elected officials and register
> your strong opposition to the elimination
of the TFL program. Heads-up
> from BG Bob Clements, USAF Ret(P38
Bob) The following has been added to
> the Congressional Budget Office Web
Site
> www.cbo.gov/<http://www.cbo.gov/>
a. Budget, Options, Volume 1: Health
> Care ( www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9925
> http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9925
)
>
> For those who have never opened one
of these web sites from OMB :
> 1. double click on the above URL
> 2. click on PDF
> 3. click on the binoculars
> 4. do a search for TFL
>
> Now here it is folks and I will guarantee
if you sit around on your
> behind and do nothing about it as
they bring these options forward this
> coming year, you will lose one of
the best healthcare benefits that the
> Medicare eligible retired military
have. It is short of the promises
> made that we fought so hard for back
in the late 90s and early 2000s but
> it is still the best healthcare program
that anyone in the United States
> has, bar none.
>
> People who are professionals always
look for the channel of least
> resistance when it comes to cutting
money out of the Federal and DOD
> budget. I can tell you this straight
on, military retirees are one of
> those channels of least resistance
noted for sitting around, doing
> nothing, and waiting for ole Joe
to do it for them. You had better wake
> up. Your medical benefits are prime
target. If you lose them, you have
> nobody to blame but yourself. Let
me repeat that ... you have nobody to
> blame but yourself.
>
> The way to secure your benefits is
to write to your members of Congress
> and to keep writing and writing and
writing. ONCE IS NOT ENOUGH!! Keep
> repeating the above statement until
you are blue in the face. Now I'm
> going to make one more statement
to all of you younger people out there
> who are not yet eligible for TRICARE
for Life. HEALTH CARE WILL
> EVENTUALLY BECOME THE DOMINATING
FACTOR IN YOUR LIFE. Remember that . .
> . . it will impact you big time with
the utmost in cruelty unless you
> are fortunate enough to die from
a heart attack or get run over by a
> truck. The service organizations
will put up a fight, but they will need
> your help and can't do it by themselves.
I hope this makes it clear as
> to what you can expect if you do
nothing.
>
> To show you how stupid these professionals
can be at times just read the
> data on the noted sites closely.
You will see that in spite of the MTFs
> (Military Treatment Facility) need
to get patients back to keep their
> doctors busy and the hospitals from
going to clinic status, these people
> from OMB would employ a means to
keep retirees from using MTF facilities
> by charging them a fee for services.
How dumb can you get? Even if you
> are an Obama fan, and believe that
changeth cometh, TFL option from OMB
> will not go away. They need the money
they spend on you for other
> programs for people who produce nothing
but votes to keep their boss in
> office. If you know of anyone who
is Retired Military, please forward
> this on to them.
>
> Remember- TFL is an "Earned Benefit"
that's been granted by a previous
> Congress.
-
26JUN09:
SOCIAL SECURITY NOTICE! MORE MONEY
FOR VETS!
When you file for social security,
file your DD-214 (Active Duty Service Time) along with the process.
See: Attached
Social Security Letter (.pdf format)
-
27FEB08:
-
No retirement pay before age 57?
Panel also recommends combining active,
reserve retirement systems
By William H. McMichael - bmcmichael@militarytimes.com
Posted : February 11, 2008
A congressionally chartered commission
has called for scrapping the entire military retirement system and making
active-duty troops wait until at least age 57 to begin drawing retired
pay.
The proposal, which would spell the end
of the current active-duty system that pays nondisability retirement immediately
after a service member completes a minimum of 20 years of service, is among
95 recommendations in the final report of the Commission on the National
Guard and Reserve, which went well beyond its original charter to review
the structure and management of the reserve components and delved into
personnel policies for active-duty members.
Under current retirement rules, an active-duty
member is eligible for retired pay immediately after completing a minimum
of 20 years of service, which can be as young as age 37. However, reservists
must wait until age 60 to draw retired pay, although a law signed Jan.
28 by President Bush allows reservists to draw retired pay 90 days earlier
than age 60 for every 90 days of mobilization in support of a contingency
operation.
Under the commission's plan, a revamped
retired system would grant limited retirement benefits starting at 10 years
of service, although payments would not begin until age 62. Those who serve
at least 20 years could receive payments at age 60; those who serve 30
years could get them at age 57.
Under the plan, troops could begin drawing
retirement pay at earlier ages, but the annuity would be reduced 5 percent
for each year that a member is under the statutory minimum retirement age.
The commission said that would bring the
military in line with the Federal Employees Retirement System.
The commission concluded that combining
the training, promotion and management of active and reserve troops into
one integrated manpower system is the only way the nation's military can
become a truly efficient operational force for the future.
"The increasing cost of personnel, and
the challenges of recruiting and retaining qualified individuals, will,
we believe, inevitably require reductions in the size of the active force,"
states the 432-page report, released Jan. 31. "This shrinking active force
will necessarily be accompanied by an increased reliance on reserve forces
for operations, particularly for homeland missions. The overall effectiveness
of those forces will depend on greater integration of the reserves with
the active component."
The commission argued that modifying the
20-year retirements would give the services an incentive to retain troops
whom they want to keep for more than 10 years but for less than 20. Additional
pay or bonuses would be needed to keep such troops in uniform beyond 10
years to maintain retention rates.
"As part of the reformed retirement system,
retention would be encouraged by making service members eligible to receive
'gate pay' at pivotal years of service," the report says. "Such pay would
come in the form of a bonus equal to a percentage of annual basic pay at
the end of the year of service, at the discretion of the services."
MATCHING FUNDS FOR TSP
In addition, the report says Congress should
expand current law to permit all service members to receive up to 5 percent
of annual basic pay in matching government contributions to the Thrift
Savings Plan. Service members currently receive no government matching
funds for TSP contributions.
"The government's contribution would vest
at 10 years of service, and the Thrift Savings Plan benefit would be portable
and thus capable of being rolled over into a civilian 401(k) account,"
the report says.
Among the report's other recommendations:
. The military's promotion system should
be competency-based versus time-based.
. Active and reserve officer personnel
management systems should be merged into a single system.
. The number of duty statuses should be
reduced from 29 to two - on active duty or off.
. The Defense Department should implement
a combined pay and personnel system to eliminate problems with incorrect
pay, low data quality, multiple personnel files and inaccurate accounting
of credit for service.
. The Guard and reserve should be given
the clear lead in Defense Department homeland security missions within
U.S. borders.
The recruiting and job market landscape
has shifted in dramatic ways, the commission said, which means the Defense
Department "must recruit, train and maintain a technologically advanced
force in an era that will be characterized by ever-increasing competition
for a shrinking pool of qualified individuals whose expectations about
career paths and mobility are changing dramatically."
"We need to look at our manpower assets
with a totally integrated approach," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro
said.
For active and reserve service members,
such a system would create a "seamless" transition to and from active duty
- "on-ramps" and "offramps," as Navy personnel officials have described
the concept. Basing promotions on competency rather than time would keep
troops competitive within the system.
RESERVE REORGANIZATION
The 95 recommendations in the report also
include a call for the reserves to be reorganized into two formal categories:
operational and strategic reserve forces.
The operational reserve would consist
of Selected Reserve units and individual mobilization augmentees who would
deploy periodically. The strategic reserve would include Selected Reserve
personnel and augmentees not scheduled for rotational active-duty tours
and the "most ready, operationally current and willing members of the Individual
Ready Reserve," the report says.
The commission also calls for scrapping
the Standby Reserve category and said members who are not "viable mobilization
assets should be excluded from the total reserve force."
The Defense Department would have to consistently
provide the support needed to ensure the sustained viability of both forces,
and Congress and the Pentagon would determine the missions each would perform.
"There used to be an understanding that
if you were ready for the away game, you were ready for the home game,"
Punaro said. "Most everyone admits that's not the case anymore. We need
a very ready force at home in peacetime, just like we need a ready force
for the overseas mission."
The reserves were conceived as a strategic
force that would be called to active duty only in national emergencies.
But they have morphed over the past 18 years, beginning with the 1991 Persian
Gulf War and spurred by the military drawdown of the 1990s, into an operational
reserve that is now regularly called upon to meet the demands of the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"It's clear that if you hadn't had an
operational Guard and reserve, you would have had to go back to the draft,
which I think everyone agrees is ... pretty unacceptable," Punaro said.
Punaro is "very bullish" on the prospects
for the commission's work to receive serious attention.
Half of the 95 recommendations "can be
done immediately," he said. About 40 will require congressional or presidential
action, according to the report.
-
07AUG06:
-
21APR06:
19APR06:
14MAR06:
Additional Proposed Tricare increases:
01MAR06
* Vesting members at 10 rather than 20
years;
* Establishing a Thrift Savings Plan with
government contributions of 5 to 10 percent of base pay;
* Providing "gate pays" at specific service
milestones, as determined by the individual services; and Delaying payment
of the retirement annuity until age 60.
In terms of pay for performance, the committee
recommends:
* Revising the pay charts so pay is based
on time in grade rather than years of service; and
Eliminating the "with dependents"
and "without dependents" provision of basic allowance for housing so all
service members in the same pay grade receive the same allowance, regardless
of their family situation.
The proposed system would benefit service members, giving them more upfront cash throughout their careers, Pilling said. He noted that most private-sector compensation packages give 80 percent of their cash up front, deferring just 20 percent for retirement. In contrast, the current military compensation package pays about one-half the total compensation up front and defers the rest.
The committee's recommendations help update the current military retirement system that Pilling said was based on a 1940s-era model. At that time, most members served 30 years, retired in their 50s and typically lived into their 60s, he said. Today, it's typical for service members to retire after 20 years of service to start second careers and to live longer lives.
Restructuring the compensation package will provide more options for service members, Pilling said. Rather than offering no retirement benefit short of 20 years, the proposed system would offer a portable retirement system with reduced-level benefits after 10 years, he explained.
Revising the pay tables to reward time in grade will ensure consistent benefits for service members promoted ahead of their peers, Pilling said. And by paying equal housing allowances to all members of equal grade in equal locations, the proposed system will reward people "for their performance, not their marital status," he said.
While bringing the military pay system more on par with systems in the private sector, Pilling said the proposal maintains sight that service in the military is unique. For example, while it calls for greater cost sharing among Tricare recipients, it continues to ensure full medical care after 20 years of service, he noted.
If Rumsfeld approves the plan, it will be subject to congressional review before being introduced, he said.
The secretary established the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation to study the current pay system and come up with ways to bring it more in line with what service members want and operational needs demand.
The seven-member committee spent a year reviewing the military pay package, holding public hearings and developing its recommendations.