Privitizing military bennies

[Wiseacre]

FYI, as a retired vet I pay $57.50 every qtr to Humana for Tricare medical coverage. When I came in, we were told we'd get medical care for life, for free, but most of us I think realize what the deal is. I can go to a military provider, VA, or a civilian provider who will accept Tricare.

A few years back I was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that required surgery. So far no reoccurrence, but my surgery was done in a civilian hospital by a civilian doctor and I never paid a dime.

In a sense vet medical coverage is becoming privatized already, probably will continue down that road. It's still a great deal, but I won't be too steamed if and when it changes. And it will change one way or another, for the worse. Has to, for me and also the non-vets the current situation isn't sustainable. Same for the Medicare crowd, something's gotta give.

 

[Si modo]

We saw how this worked at Walter Reed. We do not need to go through that again, and that Romney even suggests it is reason enough not to vote for him.

If you're talking about the deplorable conditions uncovered by the WaPo, that was the government. There was nothing private about that.

Flashback: Committee subpoenas former Walter Reed chief - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and subcommittee Chairman John Tierney asked Weightman to testify about an internal memo that showed privatization of services at Walter Reed could put “patient care services… at risk of mission failure.”

But Army officials refused to allow Weightman to appear before the committee after he was relieved of command.

“The Army was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the decision to prevent General Weightman from testifying,” committee members said in a statement today.

The committee wants to learn more about a letter written in September by Garrison Commander Peter Garibaldi to Weightman.

The memorandum “describes how the Army’s decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of ‘highly skilled and experienced personnel,’” the committee’s letter states. “According to multiple sources, the decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed led to a precipitous drop in support personnel at Walter Reed.”

The letter said Walter Reed also awarded a five-year, $120-million contract to IAP Worldwide Services, which is run by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official.

They also found that more than 300 federal employees providing facilities management services at Walter Reed had drooped to fewer than 60 by Feb. 3, 2007, the day before IAP took over facilities management. IAP replaced the remaining 60 employees with only 50 private workers.

“The conditions that have been described at Walter Reed are disgraceful,” the letter states. “Part of our mission on the Oversight Committee is to investigate what led to the breakdown in services. It would be reprehensible if the deplorable conditions were caused or aggravated by an ideological commitment to privatize government services regardless of the costs to taxpayers and the consequences for wounded soldiers.”

The letter said the Defense Department “systemically” tried to replace federal workers at Walter Reed with private companies for facilities management, patient care and guard duty – a process that began in 2000.

“But the push to privatize support services there accelerated under President Bush’s ‘competitive sourcing’ initiative, which was launched in 2002,” the letter states.

During the year between awarding the contract to IAP and when the company started, “skilled government workers apparently began leaving Walter Reed in droves,” the letter states. “The memorandum also indicates that officials at the highest levels of Walter Reed and the U.S. Army Medical Command were informed about the dangers of privatization, but appeared to do little to prevent them.”

The memo signed by Garibaldi requests more federal employees because the hospital mission had grown “significantly” during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It states that medical command did not concur with their request for more people.

“Without favorable consideration of these requests,” Garibaldi wrote, “[Walter Reed Army Medical Center] Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure.”

I understand that and I edited to try to make my point more clear.

My point is that this was a military decision based on BRAC already being slated. They lost employees and had no one to cover it so they contracted.

If they didn't contract, the work still wouldn't have been done.

 

[del]

"WE?"

It is the vets themselves who INSURE our vets are supported. I doubt anyone else every gives it a passing thought.

Uhh we're talking about INSURING that our Vets get taken care of by the Govenment...

Like at Walter Reed. You are making ideological arguements. Sorry, I value the lives and health of our returning wounded Vets far more than arguements from ideologues like you.

no she isn't.

you might want to check your own self

 

[Old Rocks]

The practical is that we owe these men and women the best the nation can offer, especially when they have suffered wounds in the service of this nation. We owe them the best, not the services of the lowest bidder.

 

[Ravi]

Mitten seems to think it's a good idea.

What say you?

Do you think it's a bad idea...?

Over barbecue and sweet tea with 12 veterans here Friday, Mitt Romney appeared to brainstorm a fundamental change to the way the nation pays back the people who put their lives on the line in the military.

Talking with the veterans about the challenge of navigating the Veterans Affairs bureaucracy to get their health care benefits after they leave active duty, Romney suggested a way to improve the system would be to privatize it.

“Sometimes you wonder, would there be someway to introduce some private sector competition, somebody else that could come in and say, you know, each soldier gets X thousand dollars attributed to them and then they can choose whether they want to go on the government system or the private system and then it follows them, like what happens with schools in Florida where they have a voucher that follows them. Who knows.”

Romney Spit-Balls His Way To Privatizing Veteran’s Benefits | TPM 2012

As long as that safety net is always there for them, why not..?

I don't like it much. I think vets, especially combat vets, should have guaranteed benefits. The way the stock market fluctuates is too chancy.

Though I guess if they CHOOSE that option that is their business....

 

[Old Rocks]

If you're talking about the deplorable conditions uncovered by the WaPo, that was the government. There was nothing private about that.

Flashback: Committee subpoenas former Walter Reed chief - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and subcommittee Chairman John Tierney asked Weightman to testify about an internal memo that showed privatization of services at Walter Reed could put “patient care services… at risk of mission failure.”

But Army officials refused to allow Weightman to appear before the committee after he was relieved of command.

“The Army was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the decision to prevent General Weightman from testifying,” committee members said in a statement today.

The committee wants to learn more about a letter written in September by Garrison Commander Peter Garibaldi to Weightman.

The memorandum “describes how the Army’s decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of ‘highly skilled and experienced personnel,’” the committee’s letter states. “According to multiple sources, the decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed led to a precipitous drop in support personnel at Walter Reed.”

The letter said Walter Reed also awarded a five-year, $120-million contract to IAP Worldwide Services, which is run by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official.

They also found that more than 300 federal employees providing facilities management services at Walter Reed had drooped to fewer than 60 by Feb. 3, 2007, the day before IAP took over facilities management. IAP replaced the remaining 60 employees with only 50 private workers.

“The conditions that have been described at Walter Reed are disgraceful,” the letter states. “Part of our mission on the Oversight Committee is to investigate what led to the breakdown in services. It would be reprehensible if the deplorable conditions were caused or aggravated by an ideological commitment to privatize government services regardless of the costs to taxpayers and the consequences for wounded soldiers.”

The letter said the Defense Department “systemically” tried to replace federal workers at Walter Reed with private companies for facilities management, patient care and guard duty – a process that began in 2000.

“But the push to privatize support services there accelerated under President Bush’s ‘competitive sourcing’ initiative, which was launched in 2002,” the letter states.

During the year between awarding the contract to IAP and when the company started, “skilled government workers apparently began leaving Walter Reed in droves,” the letter states. “The memorandum also indicates that officials at the highest levels of Walter Reed and the U.S. Army Medical Command were informed about the dangers of privatization, but appeared to do little to prevent them.”

The memo signed by Garibaldi requests more federal employees because the hospital mission had grown “significantly” during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It states that medical command did not concur with their request for more people.

“Without favorable consideration of these requests,” Garibaldi wrote, “[Walter Reed Army Medical Center] Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure.”

I understand that and I edited to try to make my point more clear.

My point is that this was a military decision based on BRAC already being slated. They lost employees and had no one to cover it so they contracted.

If they didn't contract, the work still wouldn't have been done.

Crock of shit, Sis, and you know it. They didn't 'lose' employees, they replaced them with people from a company that was managed by a Haliburton retread. And our returning wounded vets suffered for that.

People like you care nothing for the sacrifices made by the citizens that serve our nation. If the profit of the 1% can be increased by giving them substandard treatment, that is all to the good in your opinion. That is what your actions say, and the push for the privatization of everything in this nation says.

 

[editec]

Mitten seems to think it's a good idea.

What say you?

Sounds like a great way to get the USA off the hook for the promises they made.

Then whatever private company is created to oversee that pension system can go bankrupt, those with military pensions are hosed, and they can blame it all on the invisible hand of the market.

That is the plan, after all, for most non-miliatry pensions plans.

This is a great GOP kind of plan to screw the military

 

[occupied]

Privatization is one of those things some neo-cons seem to be in favor of for practically everything without being able to say exactly why.

 

[Si modo]

Flashback: Committee subpoenas former Walter Reed chief - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

I understand that and I edited to try to make my point more clear.

My point is that this was a military decision based on BRAC already being slated. They lost employees and had no one to cover it so they contracted.

If they didn't contract, the work still wouldn't have been done.

Crock of shit, Sis, and you know it. They didn't 'lose' employees, they replaced them with people from a company that was managed by a Haliburton retread. And our returning wounded vets suffered for that.

....

Actually, they did lose a few hundred employees BEFORE they contracted out. With BRAC pending, most of those who left went elsewhere because they weren't sure their positions at WR would last.

....

People like you care nothing for the sacrifices made by the citizens that serve our nation. If the profit of the 1% can be increased by giving them substandard treatment, that is all to the good in your opinion. That is what your actions say, and the push for the privatization of everything in this nation says.

Your assumption that I don't care about the vets is unfounded and you look like the fool you are.

I am not in favor of privatizing medical care for vets.

I am in favor of allowing them options for all benefits. I usually side with freedom of individual choice.

 

[Sunshine]

FYI, as a retired vet I pay $57.50 every qtr to Humana for Tricare medical coverage. When I came in, we were told we'd get medical care for life, for free, but most of us I think realize what the deal is. I can go to a military provider, VA, or a civilian provider who will accept Tricare.

A few years back I was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that required surgery. So far no reoccurrence, but my surgery was done in a civilian hospital by a civilian doctor and I never paid a dime.

In a sense vet medical coverage is becoming privatized already, probably will continue down that road. It's still a great deal, but I won't be too steamed if and when it changes. And it will change one way or another, for the worse. Has to, for me and also the non-vets the current situation isn't sustainable. Same for the Medicare crowd, something's gotta give.

I'm not sure you realize how hungry it is out there for a lot of providers. I know more than one MD who left their private practices to work for the VA because they know that the income is steady and the bennies are there. The pay is probably lower than what they would make in the private sector, but then they don't have to dig so deep to have things like medical insurance and malpractice coverage. So it's a net gain for them to work for the VA.

The things that get outsoursed are only those services that are not provided by the VA. For example, sleep studies. If a particular VA doesn't have its own sleep lab, those patients requiring such will be outsoursed as 'fee basis' patients. But the VA pays what it pays, they contract with those outside providers.

The VA is making an effort to have at least an outpatient clinic within a 30 minute drive of every veteran which is a really great thing. But around here the nearest VA HOSPITAL is 2 hours away. If a veteran goes to the ER he has to go to a local ER or drive 2 hours while having his heart attack. If he goes to the local ER entirely on his own without someone from the local clinic or the main VA officially referring him, the VA may or may not pay for the visit. It's a craps shoot for the patient.

Outsourseing is not the panacea some see it to be

 

[Valerie]

Privatization is one of those things some neo-cons seem to be in favor of for practically everything without being able to say exactly why.

"Privatization", oh my!

Have you noticed that most people in the public sphere today use buzzwords that correspond to what would be bullet points on paper? The words are familiar so you think you know what they are talking about but the buzzwords are actually codespeak. The buzzwords stands for a set of ideas or concepts, so you really have no idea what they are talking about even though you think you do. You make up your own definition to what the words mean according to your life experience.


Getting to the Root Cause

 

[Valerie]

I think Mitt made a mistake in referring to school "vouchers" in this context. As has been pointed out, TriCare for Vets already has private providers within it's network... I think Mitt was responding to concerns the Vets raised over some issues within that benefit system and is suggesting that maybe we allow other insurance companies such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield to compete with the TriCare insurance. IMO it is as simple as paying their family premium if the Veteran prefers a private plan, give it to him...

 

[Sunshine]

Privatization is one of those things some neo-cons seem to be in favor of for practically everything without being able to say exactly why.

"Privatization", oh my!

Have you noticed that most people in the public sphere today use buzzwords that correspond to what would be bullet points on paper? The words are familiar so you think you know what they are talking about but the buzzwords are actually codespeak. The buzzwords stands for a set of ideas or concepts, so you really have no idea what they are talking about even though you think you do. You make up your own definition to what the words mean according to your life experience.


Getting to the Root Cause

TQM (Total Quality Management) is not a buzzword just because people outside the field don't know what it means. TQM has been around for as long as I have practiced. Every month, I audit the practice of other NPs and MDs where I work and they audit my practice. We provide one another with feedback about how the job would be improved. And if there is a really big snafu then we audit the incident from start to finish to see if there was a breach in the standard of care. Every facility in this country has a risk management department. That is what TQM is. Risk Management.

BTW: the Standard of Care is not what you think it is either, but that doesn't make it a buzzword. The Standard of Care is what a reasonable provider would do in the same or similar situation under the same or similar circumstances.

 

[Sunshine]

I think Mitt made a mistake in referring to school "vouchers" in this context. As has been pointed out, TriCare for Vets already has private providers within it's network... I think Mitt was responding to concerns the Vets raised over some issues within that benefit system and is suggesting that maybe we allow other insurance companies such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield to compete with the TriCare insurance. IMO it is as simple as paying their family premium if the Veteran prefers a private plan, give it to him...

TriCare is for active duty soldiers and not veterans:

TRICARE Prime

 

[Valerie]

Privatization is one of those things some neo-cons seem to be in favor of for practically everything without being able to say exactly why.

"Privatization", oh my!

Have you noticed that most people in the public sphere today use buzzwords that correspond to what would be bullet points on paper? The words are familiar so you think you know what they are talking about but the buzzwords are actually codespeak. The buzzwords stands for a set of ideas or concepts, so you really have no idea what they are talking about even though you think you do. You make up your own definition to what the words mean according to your life experience.


Getting to the Root Cause

TQM is not a buzzword just because people outside the field don't know what it means. TQM has been around for as long as I have practiced. Every month, I audit the practice of other NPs and MDs where I work and they audit my practice. We provide one another with feedback about how the job would be improved. And if there is a really big snafu then we audit the incident from start to finish to see if there was a breach in the standard of care.

BTW: the Standard of Care is not what you think it is either, but that doesn't make it a buzzword. The Standard of Care is what a reasonable provider would do in the same or similar situation under the same or similar circumstances.

Don't pretend to know what I think.

 

[Sunshine]

"Privatization", oh my!

TQM is not a buzzword just because people outside the field don't know what it means. TQM has been around for as long as I have practiced. Every month, I audit the practice of other NPs and MDs where I work and they audit my practice. We provide one another with feedback about how the job would be improved. And if there is a really big snafu then we audit the incident from start to finish to see if there was a breach in the standard of care.

BTW: the Standard of Care is not what you think it is either, but that doesn't make it a buzzword. The Standard of Care is what a reasonable provider would do in the same or similar situation under the same or similar circumstances.

Don't pretend to know what I think.

You think? Wow! I would never have guessed! It's prettty clear you don't know anything about this topic.

 

[Valerie]

I think Mitt made a mistake in referring to school "vouchers" in this context. As has been pointed out, TriCare for Vets already has private providers within it's network... I think Mitt was responding to concerns the Vets raised over some issues within that benefit system and is suggesting that maybe we allow other insurance companies such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield to compete with the TriCare insurance. IMO it is as simple as paying their family premium if the Veteran prefers a private plan, give it to him...

TriCare is for active duty soldiers and not veterans:

TRICARE Prime

TRICARE and Veterans' Affairs Benefit Comparison

FYI, as a retired vet I pay $57.50 every qtr to Humana for Tricare medical coverage. When I came in, we were told we'd get medical care for life, for free, but most of us I think realize what the deal is. I can go to a military provider, VA, or a civilian provider who will accept Tricare.

 

[Valerie]

TQM is not a buzzword just because people outside the field don't know what it means. TQM has been around for as long as I have practiced. Every month, I audit the practice of other NPs and MDs where I work and they audit my practice. We provide one another with feedback about how the job would be improved. And if there is a really big snafu then we audit the incident from start to finish to see if there was a breach in the standard of care.

BTW: the Standard of Care is not what you think it is either, but that doesn't make it a buzzword. The Standard of Care is what a reasonable provider would do in the same or similar situation under the same or similar circumstances.

Don't pretend to know what I think.

You think? Wow! I would never have guessed! It's prettty clear you don't know anything about this topic.

Yawn. Do you have anything other than snide projection...?

 

[Sunshine]

I think Mitt made a mistake in referring to school "vouchers" in this context. As has been pointed out, TriCare for Vets already has private providers within it's network... I think Mitt was responding to concerns the Vets raised over some issues within that benefit system and is suggesting that maybe we allow other insurance companies such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield to compete with the TriCare insurance. IMO it is as simple as paying their family premium if the Veteran prefers a private plan, give it to him...

TriCare is for active duty soldiers and not veterans:

TRICARE Prime

TRICARE and Veterans' Affairs Benefit Comparison

FYI, as a retired vet I pay $57.50 every qtr to Humana for Tricare medical coverage. When I came in, we were told we'd get medical care for life, for free, but most of us I think realize what the deal is. I can go to a military provider, VA, or a civilian provider who will accept Tricare.

Who's eligible for TRICARE benefits?

In order to use TRICARE, you must be listed in the Defense Department's DEERS (Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System) computerized data base as being eligible for military health care benefits.

TRICARE-eligible people include:

(1) Eligible family members of active-duty service members, such as spouses, and unmarried children who are young enough (in most cases, under age 21, or under age 23 if in school full-time) to retain their eligibility. These children (including stepchildren who are adopted by the sponsor) are still covered by TRICARE, even if the spouse gets divorced or remarried. Stepchildren don't have to be adopted by the sponsor to be covered by TRICARE while the sponsor and the mother or father of the stepchildren remain married. But a stepchild who was not adopted by the sponsor loses eligibility on the date the divorce decree is final.

Active-duty service members themselves are enrolled automatically in TRICARE Prime, and may use the local military and civilian provider network (if one is in place) with proper authorization. Their health care remains the top priority of the military health care system, and they'll be the first to be allowed to sign up with primary care managers at military medical facilities;

(2) Military retirees and their eligible family members (same conditions for eligibility as above; these eligibility conditions for children are the same through all categories of eligibility);

(3) Spouses and unmarried children of reservists who are ordered to active duty for more than 30 consecutive days (they are covered only during the reservist's active-duty tour; they can use TRICARE Extra and TRICARE Standard, but they can't enroll in TRICARE Prime unless the reservist's active-duty period lasts at least 180 days), or reservists who die on active duty;

(4) Surviving unremarried spouses and unmarried children of active or retired service members who have died;

(5) Surviving unremarried spouses and unmarried children of reservists, if the reservists are injured or aggravate an injury, illness or disease during--or on the way to--active-duty training for a period of 30 days or less, or a period of inactive-duty training, and die as a result of the specific injuries, illnesses or diseases;

(6) Some unremarried former spouses of active or retired service members, who meet certain length-of-marriage rules and other requirements;

(7) Unmarried children of military sponsors, who are age 21 and over (to age 23, if the child is a full-time student), and who are severely disabled and the disability existed prior to the child's 21st birthday (or prior to the 23rd birthday, if the child is a full-time student);

(8) Dependent wards placed in the custody of a service member or former member, either by a court or by a recognized adoption agency, for a period of at least 12 months. TRICARE eligibility is effective July 1, 1994, if the child is placed by a court. A child placed by a recognized adoption agency is eligible effective on the date the child is placed by the agency, or on Oct. 5, 1994, whichever date is later;

(9) Certain family members of active-duty service members who were court-martialed and separated for spouse or child abuse, or were administratively discharged as a result of such an offense. The victims of the abuse within the family are eligible for treatment of illnesses and injuries related to the abuse for one year from the date of the sponsor's separation from the service. Cost-sharing will be the same as for other active-duty families;

(10) Certain abused spouses, former spouses, or dependent children of service members who were retirement-eligible, but who lost that eligibility as a result of abuse of the spouse or child. This benefit is effective for medically necessary services and supplies provided under TRICARE Standard on or after Oct. 23, 1992. It isn't limited to one year of eligibility (as is the category described immediately above), nor is it limited to illnesses and injuries resulting from the abuse;

(11) Illegitimate children of current or retired service members or their spouses may be eligible for TRICARE benefits under certain circumstances. Check with your nearest health benefits adviser (HBA), health care finder (HCF), or TRICARE service center (TSC);

(12) Spouses and children of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nation representatives, under certain circumstances (outpatient care only);

(13) Certain former active-duty members and their families may be eligible for limited periods of TRICARE benefits under the Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP). Check with your HBA or your military personnel office for details.

In order to use TRICARE Prime or TRICARE Extra, you must live in an area where TRICARE is in operation, and a civilian provider network has been established to support the program.

Eligibility is determined by the individual service branches. They also provide eligibility information to DEERS computer data files. Contractors then check the DEERS files for eligibility when processing claims.

Who's not eligible for TRICARE benefits?


(1) Most persons who are eligible for Medicare because of age (except active-duty family members). People who are Medicare-eligible because of disability or end-stage kidney disease, and are under 65, may retain TRICARE eligibility until they reach 65, but they must be enrolled in Medicare Part B;

(2) Parents and parents-in-law of active-duty service members or uniformed services retirees, or of deceased active-duty members or retirees, are not TRICARE-eligible. They may be able to receive treatment in military medical facilities, as space permits;

(3) Persons who are eligible for benefits under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA).

News Releases - WHO'S ELIGIBLE FOR TRICARE? WHO'S NOT ELIGIBLE?

EVERY veteran is not eligible for TriCare. Most veterans are not retirees.

The information is out there. You just aren't availing yourself of any of it.

 

[Valerie]

TriCare is for active duty soldiers and not veterans:

TRICARE Prime

TRICARE and Veterans' Affairs Benefit Comparison

Who's eligible for TRICARE benefits?

In order to use TRICARE, you must be listed in the Defense Department's DEERS (Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System) computerized data base as being eligible for military health care benefits.

TRICARE-eligible people include:

(1) Eligible family members of active-duty service members, such as spouses, and unmarried children who are young enough (in most cases, under age 21, or under age 23 if in school full-time) to retain their eligibility. These children (including stepchildren who are adopted by the sponsor) are still covered by TRICARE, even if the spouse gets divorced or remarried. Stepchildren don't have to be adopted by the sponsor to be covered by TRICARE while the sponsor and the mother or father of the stepchildren remain married. But a stepchild who was not adopted by the sponsor loses eligibility on the date the divorce decree is final.

Active-duty service members themselves are enrolled automatically in TRICARE Prime, and may use the local military and civilian provider network (if one is in place) with proper authorization. Their health care remains the top priority of the military health care system, and they'll be the first to be allowed to sign up with primary care managers at military medical facilities;

(2) Military retirees and their eligible family members (same conditions for eligibility as above; these eligibility conditions for children are the same through all categories of eligibility);

(3) Spouses and unmarried children of reservists who are ordered to active duty for more than 30 consecutive days (they are covered only during the reservist's active-duty tour; they can use TRICARE Extra and TRICARE Standard, but they can't enroll in TRICARE Prime unless the reservist's active-duty period lasts at least 180 days), or reservists who die on active duty;

(4) Surviving unremarried spouses and unmarried children of active or retired service members who have died;

(5) Surviving unremarried spouses and unmarried children of reservists, if the reservists are injured or aggravate an injury, illness or disease during--or on the way to--active-duty training for a period of 30 days or less, or a period of inactive-duty training, and die as a result of the specific injuries, illnesses or diseases;

(6) Some unremarried former spouses of active or retired service members, who meet certain length-of-marriage rules and other requirements;

(7) Unmarried children of military sponsors, who are age 21 and over (to age 23, if the child is a full-time student), and who are severely disabled and the disability existed prior to the child's 21st birthday (or prior to the 23rd birthday, if the child is a full-time student);

(8) Dependent wards placed in the custody of a service member or former member, either by a court or by a recognized adoption agency, for a period of at least 12 months. TRICARE eligibility is effective July 1, 1994, if the child is placed by a court. A child placed by a recognized adoption agency is eligible effective on the date the child is placed by the agency, or on Oct. 5, 1994, whichever date is later;

(9) Certain family members of active-duty service members who were court-martialed and separated for spouse or child abuse, or were administratively discharged as a result of such an offense. The victims of the abuse within the family are eligible for treatment of illnesses and injuries related to the abuse for one year from the date of the sponsor's separation from the service. Cost-sharing will be the same as for other active-duty families;

(10) Certain abused spouses, former spouses, or dependent children of service members who were retirement-eligible, but who lost that eligibility as a result of abuse of the spouse or child. This benefit is effective for medically necessary services and supplies provided under TRICARE Standard on or after Oct. 23, 1992. It isn't limited to one year of eligibility (as is the category described immediately above), nor is it limited to illnesses and injuries resulting from the abuse;

(11) Illegitimate children of current or retired service members or their spouses may be eligible for TRICARE benefits under certain circumstances. Check with your nearest health benefits adviser (HBA), health care finder (HCF), or TRICARE service center (TSC);

(12) Spouses and children of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nation representatives, under certain circumstances (outpatient care only);

(13) Certain former active-duty members and their families may be eligible for limited periods of TRICARE benefits under the Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP). Check with your HBA or your military personnel office for details.

In order to use TRICARE Prime or TRICARE Extra, you must live in an area where TRICARE is in operation, and a civilian provider network has been established to support the program.

Eligibility is determined by the individual service branches. They also provide eligibility information to DEERS computer data files. Contractors then check the DEERS files for eligibility when processing claims.

Who's not eligible for TRICARE benefits?


(1) Most persons who are eligible for Medicare because of age (except active-duty family members). People who are Medicare-eligible because of disability or end-stage kidney disease, and are under 65, may retain TRICARE eligibility until they reach 65, but they must be enrolled in Medicare Part B;

(2) Parents and parents-in-law of active-duty service members or uniformed services retirees, or of deceased active-duty members or retirees, are not TRICARE-eligible. They may be able to receive treatment in military medical facilities, as space permits;

(3) Persons who are eligible for benefits under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA).

News Releases - WHO'S ELIGIBLE FOR TRICARE? WHO'S NOT ELIGIBLE?

EVERY veteran is not eligible for TriCare. Most veterans are not retirees.

The information is out there. You just aren't availing yourself of any of it.

It doesn't matter what they CALL it, dimwit.


Call it VetCare and carry on with the discussion as is...