|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 14, 2010 20:34:27 GMT -8
Bill seeks to waive Medicare Premiums for older Military retirees. It addresses the broken promises of free lifetime health care made to service members at the time of enlistment in exchange for a 20 year military career.
Congressman Chris Van Hollen (Md) introduced H.R. 4593.
Official Summary
2/3/2010--Introduced.Keeping Faith With the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act of 2010 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to waive the monthly part B premium (Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits for the Aged and Disabled) with respect to:
(1) an individual who is entitled to military retired or retainer pay based upon service that began before December 7, 1956; and
(2) the spouse, widow, or widower of such individuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 16, 2010 15:10:31 GMT -8
I wrote to both Issa and Filner urging support for this bill. I own homes in both districts. You can do the same by going to: www.fra.org and clicking on the "Action Center" tab. These older retired servicemen and their spouses deserve what their government promised. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 16, 2010 21:13:13 GMT -8
How would this be paid for. Would you be in favor of raising taxes?
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 16, 2010 21:52:17 GMT -8
I hope they get what should be theirs, but I get so sick of people that lived in times of segregation being labeled the 'greatest generation'
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 17, 2010 6:42:21 GMT -8
Bill seeks to waive Medicare Premiums for older Military retirees. It addresses the broken promises of free lifetime health care made to service members at the time of enlistment in exchange for a 20 year military career. Congressman Chris Van Hollen (Md) introduced H.R. 4593. Official Summary 2/3/2010--Introduced.Keeping Faith With the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act of 2010 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to waive the monthly part B premium (Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits for the Aged and Disabled) with respect to: (1) an individual who is entitled to military retired or retainer pay based upon service that began before December 7, 1956; and (2) the spouse, widow, or widower of such individuals. Can someone provide proof that such a promise was made? A citation to a law that Congress passed saying so would be nice. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 17, 2010 9:24:38 GMT -8
I hope they get what should be theirs, but I get so sick of people that lived in times of segregation being labeled the 'greatest generation' It was not the injustice of the time that was the issue. There is always injustice in the world. Consider that we still have massive age discrimination in employment in this country. Should we disparage the entire present generation because some of them are involved in that discrimination? I say nay. The Greatest Generation earned it's named honor because it fought to save the world from massive tyranny. Many, many young men died in that quest and righteous cause. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 17, 2010 10:54:02 GMT -8
How would this be paid for. Would you be in favor of raising taxes? There are not many left living so the cost would be minimal. I would be willing to pay for it by tax or cut the Dept of Education completely. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 17, 2010 11:02:24 GMT -8
Bill seeks to waive Medicare Premiums for older Military retirees. It addresses the broken promises of free lifetime health care made to service members at the time of enlistment in exchange for a 20 year military career. Congressman Chris Van Hollen (Md) introduced H.R. 4593. Official Summary 2/3/2010--Introduced.Keeping Faith With the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act of 2010 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to waive the monthly part B premium (Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits for the Aged and Disabled) with respect to: (1) an individual who is entitled to military retired or retainer pay based upon service that began before December 7, 1956; and (2) the spouse, widow, or widower of such individuals. Can someone provide proof that such a promise was made? A citation to a law that Congress passed saying so would be nice. Good question. It may have been mostly recruiters and recruiting literature that made this promise. If that is the case, would you think that government should follow through or just continue to let those guys eat cake? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 17, 2010 12:12:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 17, 2010 12:52:13 GMT -8
The VA does, in a way, provide lifetime healthcare to vets. There is a sliding scale of eligibility where a person with a service connected disability at 100% gets first shot and a healthy vet with private insurance and an ability to pay gets last shot.
Any vet who is unable to pay for healthcare can usually get in at the VA. I know, I used to work there.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 17, 2010 15:25:44 GMT -8
Tis is an excerpt from the cited link. Now in view of this "promise" used to recruit and retain does the government have the moral obligation to provide these few Old Timers this benefit?Numerous claims have been made concerning “promises” to military personnel and retirees with regard to health care benefits. Many appear to believe that they were “promised free health care for life at military facilities.” Efforts to locate written authoritative documentation of such “promises” have not been successful. However, some military recruiting literature does make general statements about health care. As an example, a recruiting brochure cited by The Retired Officers Association states: Health care is provided to you and your family members while you are in the Army, and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of Federal service to earn your retirement.11 This language, of course, does not mention “free” health care. Nor does it mention that such care is to be provided via the military health services system and/or in military facilities. This advertised statement is correct in that military retirees do receive their promised lifetime benefits via MTFs (including space- or serviceavailable care in retirement), Tricare and Medicare — all earned as a result of their federal military service. The same source quotes a 1991 CRS report as stating that “the ‘free health care for life’ promise was functionally true and had been used to good advantage for recruiting and retention.”12
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 17, 2010 15:27:30 GMT -8
The VA does, in a way, provide lifetime healthcare to vets. There is a sliding scale of eligibility where a person with a service connected disability at 100% gets first shot and a healthy vet with private insurance and an ability to pay gets last shot. Any vet who is unable to pay for healthcare can usually get in at the VA. I know, I used to work there. It is a different category of person. Vets are not all retired. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 17, 2010 16:37:50 GMT -8
Tis is an excerpt from the cited link. Now in view of this "promise" used to recruit and retain does the government have the moral obligation to provide these few Old Timers this benefit?Numerous claims have been made concerning “promises” to military personnel and retirees with regard to health care benefits. Many appear to believe that they were “promised free health care for life at military facilities.” Efforts to locate written authoritative documentation of such “promises” have not been successful. However, some military recruiting literature does make general statements about health care. As an example, a recruiting brochure cited by The Retired Officers Association states: Health care is provided to you and your family members while you are in the Army, and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of Federal service to earn your retirement.11 This language, of course, does not mention “free” health care. Nor does it mention that such care is to be provided via the military health services system and/or in military facilities. This advertised statement is correct in that military retirees do receive their promised lifetime benefits via MTFs (including space- or serviceavailable care in retirement), Tricare and Medicare — all earned as a result of their federal military service. The same source quotes a 1991 CRS report as stating that “the ‘free health care for life’ promise was functionally true and had been used to good advantage for recruiting and retention.”12 I refer you back to the article where that question is addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 18, 2010 11:08:54 GMT -8
Tis is an excerpt from the cited link. Now in view of this "promise" used to recruit and retain does the government have the moral obligation to provide these few Old Timers this benefit?Numerous claims have been made concerning “promises” to military personnel and retirees with regard to health care benefits. Many appear to believe that they were “promised free health care for life at military facilities.” Efforts to locate written authoritative documentation of such “promises” have not been successful. However, some military recruiting literature does make general statements about health care. As an example, a recruiting brochure cited by The Retired Officers Association states: Health care is provided to you and your family members while you are in the Army, and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of Federal service to earn your retirement.11 This language, of course, does not mention “free” health care. Nor does it mention that such care is to be provided via the military health services system and/or in military facilities. This advertised statement is correct in that military retirees do receive their promised lifetime benefits via MTFs (including space- or serviceavailable care in retirement), Tricare and Medicare — all earned as a result of their federal military service. The same source quotes a 1991 CRS report as stating that “the ‘free health care for life’ promise was functionally true and had been used to good advantage for recruiting and retention.”12 I refer you back to the article where that question is addressed. Don't refer me back to anywhere. I asked you if this is owed to these people. Or are you like most government and other liberal deadbeats? We owe those few who are still living for what they were promised. No mealy mouthed legal escape will alter the fact that this promise was made in recruiting literature and verbally by recruiters. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 18, 2010 12:40:07 GMT -8
Show me the promise.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 18, 2010 14:03:07 GMT -8
>>>Show me the promise.<<< There is no doubt that there were promises. So found the court. But the promises were not binding in law: "In rejecting the retirees' claims, the district court observed that “ t is obvious ․ [that] recruiters made promises to potential recruits that they could obtain lifetime medical care for themselves and their dependents by joining the armed forces and fulfilling certain service obligations,” id. at 1294, and “[t]here is no question that factual representations were made․ The issue simply is whether those representations are contractually binding.” id. at 1292. The government admits that the “recruiters made good faith representations to potential recruits that, upon retirement, they and their dependents would receive free, lifetime medical care ․,” and that Congress has acknowledged a moral obligation to “provide health care to military retirees who believed they were promised lifetime health care in exchange for a lifetime of military service.”
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1047210.html
I'm somewhat ambivalent on this subject. If the Medicare Part B premium is too much for someone, there are alternatives. OTOH, the ranks of these WWII and Korea vets are getting thin. If my dad hadn't been KIA at age 32, and assuming he didn't succumb to something else, he'd be 92 next month.
It's an issue Congress has every right to decide. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 18, 2010 14:20:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by theMesa on Aug 20, 2010 8:14:18 GMT -8
Very good post Joe! Catholic discrimination, Protestant discrimation, ethnic discrimination, age discrimination, etc.....pick your poison and time period. For me, they are the greatest generation and I am the son of a veteran of Guadalcanal..
I hope they get what should be theirs, but I get so sick of people that lived in times of segregation being labeled the 'greatest generation' It was not the injustice of the time that was the issue. There is always injustice in the world. Consider that we still have massive age discrimination in employment in this country. Should we disparage the entire present generation because some of them are involved in that discrimination? I say nay. The Greatest Generation earned it's named honor because it fought to save the world from massive tyranny. Many, many young men died in that quest and righteous cause. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 20, 2010 10:45:44 GMT -8
That is a nice film. Good piece of work. Wonderful propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 20, 2010 10:59:43 GMT -8
That is a nice film. Good piece of work. Wonderful propaganda. Are you going to show your true colors and say if these old guys should be taken care of? These old guys are the reason that you can express your opinionthrough free speech, sorry as that opinion may be. That clip should not influence nor would I expect it to influence people who do not think their government should live up to it's moral obligations. Does your performance on this thread say anything about your character? I sure hope not! |
|
