Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Looking for information about the rescission of Section 8 Veterans Medical Benefit

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 01:09 PM
Original message
Looking for information about the rescission of Section 8 Veterans Medical Benefit
Being unemployed, uninsured and foreclosed I thought I'd pull my DD214 and head down to the VA.

Bottom line is that, I was rather successfully employed last year and since I had all my fingers and toes when I out processed, I'm a "non-service connected injury" veteran. (Section 8). And that means ... "no soup for you"

At some point section 8 vets were cut out of the benefit. Section 8 Vets in the past paid higher co-pays for the benefit, but not any more.

The analyst at the VA said the rescission was put in place in 2003, but I've looked at the bill and can't find it.

Anybody in DU know when the restriction was put into law. This has John McCain written all over it.

Any help would be appreciated.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. You probably made too much money last year.
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 01:16 PM by hobbit709
The means test on me says I can't make more than $28K last year tp qualify.
I have a $8/mo copay on prescriptions but free medical care. I've been on VA care since 2005.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks for the info. I am really looking for the bill...who fucking did this.
We are either Vets or we're not. I do not know of any Vet that abuses the benefit. But when I need it ... I have earned it. I want to know WHO cut me out.

When I went in I was "assured" the benefit for life. Then the government changed that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
white cloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. This might hepl
It might help.

http://www.fra.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5183

Bush ‘strongly opposes’ troop pay, benefit initiaties
By Tom Philpott

Talk about lousy timing.

With President Bush’s popularity scraping bottom in opinion polls, with U.S. casualties rising in Iraq in a force surge that has stretched soldier tours to 15 months, the Bush administration July 10 said it "strongly opposes" key military pay and benefit gains tossed into their fiscal 2008 defense bill.

Initiatives the administration "strongly opposes" include:

-- A military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent versus 3 percent endorsed by the White House.

-- Lowering the age-60 start of reserve retirement annuities for reserve component members by the length of their future mobilizations.

-- Expanding eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to service members forced by combat disabilities to retire short of 20 years.

-- Directing pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide the Department of Defense with same price discounts for TRICARE retail pharmacy network that are provided already on medicines dispensed from base pharmacies.

The administration also grumbled that the Senate intends to block for another year TRICARE fee increases for under-65 retirees and dependents.

The objections appear in a "Statement of Administration Policy" from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget delivered to Senate leaders as they opened floor debate on the defense authorization bill.

A day later, Senate Republicans, at White House’s urging, blocked amendments to the bill that would have shortened Iraq tours for U.S. ground forces and slowed frequency of wartime deployments. Republicans said the amendments really were aimed at changing administration policy in Iraq.

Here is more on Senate provisions that the White House opposes:

PAY RAISE – Like the House, senators favor a 3.5 percent military pay raise for 2008 versus the administration’s proposed 3 percent to match private sector wage growth as measured by the government’s Employment Cost Index (ECI). The White House calls the extra half percentage point unnecessary and notes that basic pay has jumped by 33 percent since 2001. The added cost of the bigger raise, $2.2 billion through 2013, is money "that would otherwise be available to support our troop," said OMB letter.

The White House will lose this one. Congress intends to approve the ninth consecutive military raise to be set at least .5 percent above private sector wage gains, continuing to close a perceived "pay gap" with civilians.

However, a Congressional Budget Office report released in late June suggests no such gap exists. When housing allowances growth and associated tax advantages are weighed, the pay gap for the enlisted force, which advocates say started in 1982, actually was closed by 2002 . Since then, the military pay gap has become a "pay surplus," even excluding improvements in special pay s and bonuses, CBO says.

Military associations dispute the CBO findings and support congressional efforts to continue to special military pay adjustments. The House in May voted to sustain the string of ECI-plus-a-half-percent military raises through 2012. The Senate bill deals only with the 2008 raise. When House-Senate conferees work a final compromise bill later this summer, the CBO findings could persuade conferees to adopt the Senate pay raise plan.

TRICARE INCREASES – Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the new assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, has said he intends to work with Congress and service associations on more modest TRICARE fee increases for under-65 retirees and their dependents than has been pushed so far by the Bush administration. The OMB letter doesn’t reflect that air of compromise.

By not allowing the TRICARE fees and deductibles to rise as the administration planned, OMB chided, the Senate is adding $1.86 billion, again "funds that would otherwise be available to support our troops."

RESERVE RETIREMENT – The Senate bill would lower the start of reserve retirement at age 60 by three months for every 90 days a reservist or Guard members is recalled after the change is enacted. The administration opposes this move, arguing it fuels growth in military deferred compensation and overall entitlement spending and will "only marginally" improve career retention among for Reserve and Guard members.

CRSC FOR ‘CHAPTER 61’ RETIREES -- The Senate bill would expand eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to certain retirees forced by their disabilities to leave service short of 20 years. Only those disabled by combat injuries would be eligible. CRSC pay would be set by plugging into the usual retired pay formula the smaller number of years that qualified disabled retirees have served.

The House voted to expand CRSC only to Chapter 61 retirees who served at least 15 years and have combat-related disabilities rated 60 percent or higher. House-Senate conferees will have to reconcile the differences. The administration opposes such "piecemeal changes to disability compensation," said OMB, noting that several commissions are studying disability pay. Congress should await a comprehensive reform package.

Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel offered an amendment July 11 that would have assured active duty service members as much time back home as they spend deployed. Reserve component members would have been guaranteed a three-to-one, home-to-mobilization ratio. Republicans blocked the amendment from coming to a full Senate vote.

Hagel offered a second amendment to limit soldier deployments to Iraq to no more than 12 months and Marine deployments to no more than seven months. With 60 votes needed, the measure was defeated 52 to 45. Forty four Republicans and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) voted against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC