Please read this article it concerns what the new presidential admisnistration wants to do wiht our healthcare as millitary families and vets and retirees
Jo - posted on 03/12/2009
being frustrated with tricare and MTF's in general does not mean we do not support our spouses or the military.
If you think that is scary (what they want to do with tricare) you should see what they want to do to survivor benefits. militaryonesource.com has a lot of information on these topics for those that are interested.
And many of those "recommendations" are no longer recommendations, tricare has already announced several of those changes on their website
Jamie - posted on 03/10/2009
Can I just say this is ridiculous. My personal opinion, and call me racist if youd like, why not cut all the immigrants out of thier benifits. Every state and the country has programs for these people to get health insurance, food stamps, even cash assistance. They are receiving something they dont deserve, and who suffers, apparently our solider and sailors. They fight for our freedom and now we want to take away things they have earned. While someone walked across a border and is now getting state funding. Honestly this is one time I can say geez hun, its a good thing you broke you foot and got traumatic brain injury, you get to keep your health insurance, but your two buddies well sorry they gotta fork out more cash. This is not right!
Cyndi - posted on 03/09/2009
The military pays OK, most jobs out there don't give you what the military does.Try and find a job that pays what the military pays with the benefits of the military in the civilian world. You can live an a good buget and survive on military pay. I have been living on it for a long time and you can make ends meet. If you can't there is budgeting classes on base that are great.
No your do not pay for tricare prime as active duty, the Base gives good medical care it is just not for me and my family and we made the choice to use tricare standard but my husband is retiring soon we at that point will go to tricare prime.
As military dependents we need to be pro military and support our husbands.
Toni - posted on 03/08/2009
See, that's just it. We shouldn't have to go to a civilian MD to get quality care. We should be able to get quality care on base with a military provider. That is Tricare's downfall. By the way, even Prime patients PAY for healthcare. It is deducted from the military member's pay monthly. No, its not much but yes, we do pay for it. Personally, I'd rather them take $40 more a month to get better health care but I doubt that will ever happen. 1. Because military families so often live month to month and that $40 would hurt them and 2. the military really needs to work on recruiting quality MD's to join the service and to retain them instead of hiring substandard non-military doctors.
Cyndi - posted on 02/27/2009
I understand your frustration with Tricare but you do have options with the plan I don't like the base MD's I pay the difference and have my kids on Tricare Standard I pay for the piece of mind my ped is on call all the time if I have questions. But that is my choice I know a lot of people can't make that choice but if you can it is worth it.
Just make the insurance work for your family and call tricare and review your options
Toni - posted on 02/27/2009
Here the system is WAY overloaded and many times, the only option to being seen is to go to the ER. I can't tell you how many times I wish I could've made an appt. but couldn't and then had to go to Urgent Care on base and wait for HOURS. A few weeks ago, my daughter slammed her finger in the car door. My husband took her to urgent care at Langley and after waiting an hour, they told him it would be a 5+hour wait. They waiting room was filled with sick people. That is not appropriate care for a child, IMO. The clinic we go to has same day only appts. The line opens at 6:30 and I called a few weeks ago to get an appt. at 7am. My daughter had horrible headaches that bad enough to make her cry and would not go away. Couldn't get an appt. So of course we ended back up at Urgent Care. If Tricare wants people to stop using ERs and Urgent cares needlessly, then they need to start hiring more doctors.
I also think its funny that you say that people go to the dr. all the time for colds or for fevers, etc. When we were in Maine, we had privatized healthcare on prime because there is no MTF. We also had no copays but we saw civilians. I was a new mom and often took my daughter in for a cold or a fever and I always felt horrible when it turned out to be nothing. When I told them I felt bad for taking a slot away from sick kids, they insured me that it is their job to see sick patients, no matter how sick. That is what they are paid to do. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with checking to see if a cold is in fact a cold and not an ear infection. And that a fever is in fact just viral instead of the flu, strep or and ear infection. I'm not a dr. and I don't know to diagnose those things so why wouldn't I take her in to the dr? Yes, it floods the system. I don't think that it happens more often because there is a copay. I would take her to the dr. for the exact same things if I had to pay. I expect for my insurance to accomodate my needs and my family's needs.
This is one of my biggest fears of universal healthcare. I hope it doesn't happen! If Tricare is any indication of how it would be run, it would be horrible... so much red tape, shortages of doctors, and communication is difficult between drs. and patients. *sigh*
Cyndi - posted on 02/26/2009
Did you see the news
• Department of Veterans Affairs funding would increase by $5.5 billion under Obama's proposed budget, to $55.9 billion. The VA also received an additional $1.4 billion in the stimulus package.
• Funding for the VA under the budget is projected to increase by $25 billion over the next five years. The budget "expands eligibility for veterans health care to over 500,000 veterans by 2013."
• The proposed budget "expands eligibility for VA health care to non-disabled veterans earning modest incomes ... for the first time since January 2003."
• Under the proposed budget, "for the first time, highly disabled veterans who are medically retired from service will be eligible for concurrent receipt of disability benefits from VA in addition to Department of Defense retirement benefits."
• Under the 2010 budget, the Defense Department will add 21 new Warrior in Transition complexes, which provide comprehensive rehabilitative care for wounded veterans. The budget does not indicate the current total number of Warrior in Transition complexes.
• The 2010 budget expands mental health screening and treatment services offered by the VA.
E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
| Mixx it | Share
CNN's Terry Frieden, Alan Silverleib and Robert Yoon contributed to this report.
Erica - posted on 02/26/2009
well i understand a lot of what many of u are saying about active duty, its there retired and the vets benifits that i dont think is right, i didnt know about some of the stuff u mentioned allison, i just saw this link somwhere else took me to an article and read it, and it suprised me a lot, and i though many people might want to know about it
I see where it says this plan comes out every two years, but my question is does anybody know has it been suggested before that we pay for military treatment before? I have no problem paying a deductible on prime but than do I get a choice on who I see, cause right now because we live with in 20 minutes of an Army base, and I have no choice but to go on base. So if i am paying I want a choice.
Sarah - posted on 02/26/2009
"Every two years CBO presents daring options for Congress and the executive branch to weigh in trying to control federal spending."
I guess I read it a little differently than you. I agree with Allison. I looked to me like these recommendations to cut spending are something that happen all the time, not just with this administration. It isn't Obama's plan at all. It was something suggested to him. As of October when the article was written he was not President and I have yet to read if this is a plan that he wants to put into effect. I do agree that some of the things outlined would not be good for the military or its familes.
Adf0905 - posted on 02/26/2009
Its not only the new presidential cabinet. Things like these were also suggested by Bush, and it specifically states in the article that they are simply ideas that have been presented...nothing has been endorsed by Obama or his cabinet. And I do agree with one specific remark..."CBO estimates these fees would save $7 billion over 10 years and encourage Prime enrollees to "use medical services prudently." I can only imagine how many frivolous doctor and ER visits Tricare pays for, simply because we don't pay a dime. I know many people who have no problem going to the ER for a cold or a fever, simply because they don't have to pay for it. Not only does that tie up the ER services for people who actually need it, but it wastes money. And in this economy, every single penny saved is important!
Erica - posted on 02/26/2009
Vets Eyed For Health Cost Cuts
Tom Philpott | December 31, 2008
CBO Eyes Military Retirees, Vets for Health Cost Cuts
A new report from the Congressional Budget Office shows why some military retirees and veterans could face higher out-of-pocket costs if the take bold moves to reform the U.S. health system and to make federal health programs more efficient.
Among 115 "options" presented, though not endorsed, in the CBO report, several focus on raising out-of-pocket costs for retirees and one for families. Others would tighten access to VA hospitals and clinics, or raise VA health fees, for veterans with no service-connected conditions.
Working-age military retirees will find here some of those familiar cost-saving ideas endorsed by the Bush administration to raise TRICARE fees, co-payments and deductibles for retirees under age 62 and their spouses.
But other options are new and, if enacted into law, would raise health costs for military retirees and for active duty families. One option suggests having the VA health system disenroll millions of current users who have no service-related injuries or ailments.
Every two years CBO presents daring options for Congress and the executive branch to weigh in trying to control federal spending. The new report, "Budget Options, Volume 1: Health Care," is unusual in that it focuses entirely health care, an Obama policy priority, and its arrival is unscheduled.
It's also significant that the CBO director who led this work was Peter R. Orszag, President-elect Obama's nominee to be his director of the Office of Management and Budget. OMB is responsible for assembling the president's annual budget request to Congress. How bold will his economic team be?
"We are going to go through our federal budget, as I promised during the campaign, page by page, line by line, eliminating those programs we don't need and insisting that those that we do need operate in a sensible, cost-effective way," Obama said in November as he announced Orszag's nomination to join his cabinet .
"We're also going to focus on one of the biggest, long-run challenges that our budget faces, namely the rising cost of health care in both the public and private sectors," Obama continued. "This is not just a challenge but also an opportunity to improve the health care that Americans rely on, and to bring down the costs that taxpayers, businesses and families have to pay. That is what [OMB] will do in my administration."
Obama added, "Peter doesn't need a map to tell him where the bodies are buried in the federal budget. He knows what works and what doesn't, what's worth our precious tax dollars and what is not."
Indeed, in the CBO report's preface, Orszag gets "special thanks" for having "conceived" the report and being "instrumental in its development."
Many of its options deal with adjustments to Medicare, Medicaid, private health insurance rules and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan for federal civilians. Most ideas are aimed at cutting costs but some would enhance benefits. The 226-page report can be .
Here are some options that would touch military people and veterans:
TRICARE for Working-Age Retirees – Fees, co-payments and deductibles would be raised for retirees under 62 to restore the relative costs paid when TRICARE began in 1995. would pay an annual deductible of $350 for an individual and $700 for families. Congress has declined to support such increases for the past three years.
Fees for Active Duty Families – Dependents of active duty members enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the managed care network, would pay new fees equal to 10 percent of the cost of health services obtained either in military treatment facilities or through civilian network providers. Total out of pocket costs would be capped, however.
To help offset these costs, dependents would receive a $500 non-taxable allowance annually. Those who elect to use alternative health insurance, rather than TRICARE, could apply the $500 toward their health insurance premiums, co-payments or deductibles.
CBO estimates these fees would save $7 billion over 10 years and encourage Prime enrollees to "use medical services prudently." It also would entice more spouses to enroll in employer-provided health plans instead of TRICARE. The downside, CBO said, would be financial difficulties for some Prime enrollees despite the cap on out-of-pocket costs. Also, CBO said, spouses induced to rely on employer health plans could see health coverage interrupted during military assignment relocations.
TRICARE-For-Life Fees – The military's health insurance supplement to Medicare could see higher user costs. Under this option, beneficiaries would pay the first $525 of yearly medical costs plus one half of the next $4725 of costs charged to Medicare. So the extra out-of-pocket cost for TFL users would be up to $2887.50 a year. This amount would be indexed to rise with Medicare costs. The change would save $40 billion over 10 years. But CBO said it also could discourage some patients from seeking preventive care or proper management of chronic conditions. So it could negatively affect some patients' health.
Tighten VA Enrollment – The VA healthcare system would be directed to disenroll 2.3 million Priority Groups 7 and 8 -- individuals who are not poor and have no service-related medical needs. Estimated savings would be $53 billion over 10 years but Medicare spending would rise by $26 billion in the same period as elderly among these vets shifted to Medicare.
CBO said 90 percent of these vets have other health care coverage. But this change could leave up to 10 percent unable to find affordable care.
Erica - posted on 02/25/2009
That is absurd. That would be a huge mistake.
I know but this affects all of us, so i thought i would try and get the word out about it, i found it from the conservitive moms group on here, i dont know what we could do to prevent this, we as familie members dont want this, but our loved ones who serve and have served dont deserve this kind of treatment, any ideas on what we could do
Join Circle of Moms
Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.Join Circle of Moms