Military beni's?

[wrag]

From: E Lawton [mailto:elawton@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:48 PM
Subject: Shocking Legislation

 

Today's Air Force Times (and possibly, the Army and Navy Times as well),
dated June 27th, 2005, page 16, has a story by Rick Maze which is not yet on
the web.  It's headline reads "Vets' groups at odds with insurance plans."

The substance of the story is as follows:

    At recent hearings involving the House Veterans Affairs subcommittee,
some new "disability insurance" is being conjured by the government that is
being opposed - rightfully, by two VSOs to date, the DAV and PVA (Paralyzed
Veterans of America).  Amazingly, all the big VSOs....MOAA, NAUS, TREA, VFW,
ROA and others are absent from any reference in the story.  Why, I don't
know...but hopefully some of you will find out ASAP and get some people
mobilized to oppose Congress.  Hopefully, if these organizations do not know
about this legislation, they will soon.  

    The essence of this new insurance concept, as generally described in the
1/2 page article, is as follows:

        What -

            a.  Create disability insurance that is to be sold to healthy,
active duty personnel.

            b.  This insurance allegedly will be designed to equate specific
premiums with specific, disabling service connected problems, as explained
in the article.

             c.  G.I.'s will be paying for their own disability insurance
while they are healthy.

             d.  This insurance applies to disabling injuries incurred in
the line of duty, i.e., ON THE JOB!

             e.  Cited in the article is a statement by Rep. Renzi (R-AZ)
who is quoted as saying, "Congress should consider letting families pay for
the traumatic injury insurance if a service member declines coverage."  (My
comment:  Oh I get it.  The service member declines because he has to buy
food and clothing for his children, thus, his parents or siblings should
fork over the funds and take from their savings rather than the USG,
responsible for sending the troop into combat.)

        When -  According to the article by Rick Maze, Congress is hoping to
have legislation passed this year!

         Why -

                a.  Since becoming the Secretary of Defense, Sec. Rumsfeld
and his staff have continuously articulated their chagrin for having to
appropriate funds to help military retirees and disabled veterans.  We've
seen many articles targeting MRs and disabled veterans, but now the target
is subtlety changing to actually include the active duty!  Imagine being a
soldier today, ordered into combat and required to pay for your own
disability combat insurance!  Wow, what a deal!  And we wonder why
recuriting numbers are declining.

                b.  It is clear that Sec. Rumsfeld and his people are
seeking "imaginative" ways of relieving themselves of their responsibilities
with respect to disabled personnel.  In other words, if someone gets injured
in the line of duty, DOD doesn't want the responsibility to care for those
men and women.  So......they are seeking a new and innovate way for men and
women to pay for their own care, even when hurt in combat!

                  c.  In light of the heavy costs Taxpayers are footing to
pay for the "War on Terrorism," it is obvious that Uncle Sam must find new
and innovative ways to acquire the funds to pay the bills.  Reducing its'
responsibilities to care for wounded or disabled personnel by forcing them
to have their own insurance sounds fairly innovative to me.  However, this
is still on "the drawing board," thus, we must not let the DOD and others
slip this legislation through Congress with their buddies on the Hill.  Why
now has our government decided it is not the responsibility of the
Government to care for wounded or disabled military personnel.

        Who - This will apparently apply to everyone on active duty.  Who in
his or her right mind wouldn't purchase "disability insurance" nowadays
since everyone in the service is subject to deployment (other than a small
percentage of personnel).  

NOTE:  The Air Force Times story does not have a bill number on this
specific legislation (maybe a stand alone bill, maybe an amendment to an
existing bill), nor have I been able to locate it in the Thomas Locator on
the web.  There is a bill on the Hill pertaining to the topic however, and
it is  H.R. 1618 entitled  

Wounded Warrior Servicemembers Group Disability Insurance Act of 2005
(Introduced in the House) sponsored by the same, Rep Renzi, R-AZ.  The bill
was dropped in April and has 5 co-sponsors.

  _____  


There are a couple of congressmen and one House Committee mentioned in the
article, so you might wish to start with them to get more details.

        a.  Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Florida  

               


Washington D.C.
324 Cannon HOB
Washington, Washington DC  20515
Phone: (202) 225-4136
Fax: (202) 225-3414


  <http://jeffmiller.house.gov/_images/hr.gif>


Ft. Walton Beach Office
348 S.W. Miracle Strip Parkway, Suite 24
Fort Walton Beach, Florida  32548
Phone: 850-664-1266
Fax: 850-664-0851


Pensacola Office

[P0G0]

My father joined the air force in 1957 served 2 tours in viet nam and then tranfered over to SAC first to bombers ,then moved to the titan missle silo's. He was promised a lot of things if he stayed till retirement in 1977, since that time it has gone down hill. The medical benefits resemble that of the most horrible HMO to be found.
(Want to see U.S. goverment health care , visit a few VA hospitals)

Will not even go into the retirement pay.

Lets face it, if this goverment and the public at large applauds and supports "thier" soldiers and sticking faux yellow ribbons everywhere,  why in the H*** do some of them have to use foodstamps to feed their children?


Not much sense in thinking that the country will support the retired & disabled vets if they wont even support thier active duty.
But those of us who care will still try anyway.

[Toad]

I've got a retired AF Father as well, Nebraska. He's on Tricare. It's true that he gets diddly if he goes to a military installation for anything, even glasses or dental.

However, he's had some top quality heart work done at Bryan in Lincoln, NE and basically paid nothing using Tricare.

So you might look into that and see what's up. Our whole family is glad dad is in Tricare.

As for Rumsfeld and the budget. AFAIK, SecDef gets money from Congress and has to pay all the bills.

Is there a specific Congressional appropriation for Vet bennies or does it all come out of the general Def Dept funding?

If SecDef has to buy bullets and retired vet care during a shooting war and Congress doesn't give him enough money to do both, how does he handle that situation?

I'm not taking sides, I'm asking questions.

Like I said, I don't know any particulars here and I'm partial to Vet's benefits, if nothing else because of my Dad. I'm also aware that none of this is ever as simple as it seems.

[Gunslinger]

Ok DONT PANIC


This isn't all that bad when you look at some of the figures.  I maybe wrong but I've heard rumblings of this as well.  Congress wan't to increase SGLI (service group life insurence) pay outs for deaths to $400k.  To pay for this all they are asking for is an OPTIONAL $1.00 increase in what we pay right now.  For me I pay an extra $12 a month for $150K of insurence on my wife.

The other thing they are talking about is actually INCREASING the disability measures.  Again there's no money for this to be found so you opt to pay for it 1-5$ a month.

We were told once that in order for the USAF to have "matching funds" into our savings program they'd have to cancel the F22 cause it's that expensive.

I belong to several veterans groups and have not seen one word about the "sky falling"

[oboe]

Servicemen should not have to pay for their own disability insurance.   I think that is a terrible idea.    As if the servicemen aren't making enough of a sacrifice already!

I wonder who pays for Rummy's DI?

[Toad]

Read Gun's post.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by oboe
Servicemen should not have to pay for their own disability insurance.   I think that is a terrible idea.    As if the servicemen aren't making enough of a sacrifice already!

I wonder who pays for Rummy's DI?

We already pay for our life insurence.  Right now we DONT HAVE DISABILITY INSURANCE

First let's define what that isn't:

It is NOT: "disability" IE "I'm on VA Disability" or "I'm a disabled vet"

Now let's define what it IS:

When a servicemember NOW get's disabled he goes to a med. board to determine what level of disability he rates.  (most amputees are 1005).

That means they get a percentage of their current pay check PLUS cost of living increases for the rest of their life (or disability term defined by the med board/VA)

All the above mention is a steady check not unlike social security disability.  Sometimes it doesnt pay much and most allways isn't worth it BUT it is something and you do get preference for hiring in the federal govt.


OK now the subject at hand is a new disability payment.  

Example: Cpl. Joe Marine faught bravely at the battle of faluja.  During a firefight he took an RPG hit and lost a leg.

More than likely he will be rated at 100% disability through the VA and get a steady paycheck the rest of his life.

NOW in addition they are trying to add a lump sum payment of $100K or more.  This would cost money of course, i'm gussing between $5-12 a month.  


again DONT PANIC

Rummy and his band of goons arent taking anything away from the GIs

[Gunslinger]

In addition.

The point I'm trying to make is that this amendment to title 38 does not take away from anything.  what it does is add:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1618

Official Title: To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a group disability insurance benefit for members of the Armed Forces who incur certain severe disabilities.

4/13/2005--Introduced.
Wounded Warrior Servicemembers Group Disability Insurance Act of 2005 - Authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to purchase from one or more insurance companies a policy (or policies) of group disability insurance to automatically insure, in the amount of $50,000 each, any servicemember who: (1) assumes an obligation to perform (for less than 31 days) active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training; and (2) is rendered uninsurable from a disability, or aggravation of a preexisting disability, incurred while proceeding directly to or returning directly from such duty or training. Outlines qualifying disabilities for purposes of such coverage, including: (1) complete and permanent loss of movement of an extremity; (2) burns of third degree or higher covering more than one square foot; (3) the loss of sight of one or both eyes; (4) the permanent loss of one hand or foot; and (5) the irretrievable loss of speech or hearing.
Provides for the payment of premiums and other payments with respect to such insurance.
 for more facts!

[oboe]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
...Again there's no money for this to be found so you opt to pay for it 1-5$ a month.

The way I read it, if they want increased DI payouts, they'll have to pay for it themselves.

I'm not so sure its a good idea, before sending young men into battle, to ask them to wrestle with the issue of how likely they feel they are to be disabled, and what level of DI payout they want in the event they get an arm or a leg blown off by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

I think it might be better to send them into battle secure in the knowledge that the government is fully behind them and all of their buddies, and anyone who suffers a disabling injury will be taken care of.   I think their demonstrated loyalty and willingness to sacrifice demand no less.    Askign them to pay for their own coverage strikes me as cheap, and less than our soldiers deserve.

[Toad]

oboe, were you ever in?

[oboe]

Only a brief stint in college ROTC, so no sir, I never was.   I have a lot of respect though, for those that serve.    Probably tend to be idealistic about it and thus may misunderstand certain aspects of military service from time to time.

[Toad]

Just asking because there has ALWAYS been optional insurance for GI's. Well, certainly since I was in and that's quite a while.

For example, everyone got a "basic" life insurance plan when I was in and you could pay a bit more and  increase the amount.

If I understand what Guns is saying, that's what is going on here. This is ADDITIONAL insurance that you can purchase and if it's like the life insurance deal when I was in, the price is usually far better than anything you can get on the civvie market.

Now, I'm sure Guns or other will correct me if I'm wrong.

[oboe]

I pretty much get what you're saying.    Offer everyone a fair, basic amount, and then leave it up to the individual to upgrade and pay more if they want additional coverage.

My impression was that the military leadership has realized, with regard to DI coverage anyway, that the basic coverage is insufficient (per GS, there apparently is NO DI coverage), so they want to offer additional coverage but make the GIs pay for it.

I think if they feel what they offer as basic coverage is insufficient, then by all means make it sufficient, but don't charge the GIs.

I think its going to all come down to what is "fair and sufficient"?   I would tend to err on the side favoring the GIs, esp during a time when recruitment is suffering.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by oboe
I pretty much get what you're saying.    Offer everyone a fair, basic amount, and then leave it up to the individual to upgrade and pay more if they want additional coverage.

My impression was that the military leadership has realized, with regard to DI coverage anyway, that the basic coverage is insufficient (per GS, there apparently is NO DI coverage), so they want to offer additional coverage but make the GIs pay for it.

I think if they feel what they offer as basic coverage is insufficient, then by all means make it sufficient, but don't charge the GIs.

I think its going to all come down to what is "fair and sufficient"?   I would tend to err on the side favoring the GIs, esp during a time when recruitment is suffering.

yea but we pay for additional SGLI now.  I see wha you are saying completly and it is a very noble thaught not to have the GIs contribute to their DI BUT the problem is funding.  Benifits are good but there has to be a way to pay for them.

[oboe]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea but we pay for additional SGLI now.  I see wha you are saying completly and it is a very noble thaught not to have the GIs contribute to their DI BUT the problem is funding.  Benifits are good but there has to be a way to pay for them.

That's something that has me confused.   This administration doesn't bat an eyelash at borrowing billions and running up a multi-trillion dollar national debt, and it has asked more of its military than any other in recent history, so why are they so stymied about taking care of the troops properly?