TFL and Wounded Warrior

[mickeyd]

I found this discussion about possible Tricare For Life changes very interesting. I believe that the deficit commission ideas have not been forwarded to Congress, but this may pop up again in the future. Interesting that the wounded warriors would take a huge hit on this also.

The Deficit Commission's Dec. 1 report gathered bipartisan support from 11 of the 18 commissioners - not enough to force an up-or-down congressional vote, but more than enough to influence the agenda of the new Congress next spring. One surprising new commission proposal would make major TRICARE For Life cutbacks affecting Medicare-eligibles and wounded warriors.

MOAA: The Deficit Commission: TFL and Wounded Warriors

 

[Nords]

I remember when "wounded warriors" used to be "disabled retirees".

I think MOAA is leaning a tad too far forward on this example... a little educational lobbying might be more productive than their breathless blow-by-blow reporting, but the lobbying is probably a lot less worthy of newsletters & e-mails.

 

[Rustic23]

I not sure I get the intent of you post.

I found there comments accurate. A wounded soldier that has a family pays about $500, assuming Tricare Prime, for his family health care. When he is forced onto Medicare, his cost goes up $1,200 a year, as he still has to pay for Tricare Prime. The new plan could, as I read it, add another $3,000 to this, and considering the extent of their wounds would.

Now, there is, and will be a big hue and cry about who's back we are going to use to pay down the deficit. This does not seem to be one I would be willing to climb on.

I also don't think it is right for the federal government to require that your supplemental policy have these terms, and by your, I don't mean Tricare, I mean any supplemental policy. I just don't see the legal justification for government being able to tell you how much insurance you can buy, and by limiting the terms of your policy this is exactly what they are doing. The next step is the insurance companies convincing their politicians that Auto insurance rates are too high, and that we need a law forcing everyone to take a larger deductible. This is not the road to free enterprise, IMHO.

 

[mickeyd]

I remember when "wounded warriors" used to be "disabled retirees".

I think MOAA is leaning a tad too far forward on this example... a little educational lobbying might be more productive than their breathless blow-by-blow reporting, but the lobbying is probably a lot less worthy of newsletters & e-mails.

"Disabled retirees" doesn't seem to include only those military members who were severely wounded due to enemy action.

Prior to seeing this clip I was unaware that WW were covered by TFL/Medicare just like we old timers. I thought that they were somehow covered by tricare prime.

 

[JDARNELL]

I remember when "wounded warriors" used to be "disabled retirees".

I always thought wounded warriors were what we were calling the guys returning off the battlefield that were injured as a result of combat. Maybe I am wrong?

Tomcat98

 

[Nords]

"Disabled retirees" doesn't seem to include only those military members who were severely wounded due to enemy action.
Prior to seeing this clip I was unaware that WW were covered by TFL/Medicare just like we old timers. I thought that they were somehow covered by tricare prime.

I always thought wounded warriors were what we were calling the guys returning off the battlefield that were injured as a result of combat. Maybe I am wrong?
Tomcat98

Yeah, now I'm more confused than ever.

If WW are indeed covered by TFL/Medicare then I'd understand referring to them that way. But I'm not aware of that either, although I can look into it.

I thought MOAA had adopted the cynical marketing tactic of re-labeling "disabled retirees" as "wounded warriors" just to gain more lobbying support from a bunch of members of Congress (and their lobbyists and PACs) who've never owned a military ID and didn't have any appreciation of how those retirees got disabled in the first place. "Wounded warrior" certainly makes a bigger semantic impact on a clueless listener than "disabled retiree".

Personally I'd think the sole criterion for being called a "wounded warrior" would be to look at your uniform. Is a Purple Heart pinned to it somewhere? Then you're a wounded warrior. Anything else just cheapens the verbiage and degrades the guys who deserve that designation far more than me or those with non-combat injuries.

 

[clifp]

.

Personally I'd think the sole criterion for being called a "wounded warrior" would be to look at your uniform. Is a Purple Heart pinned to it somewhere? Then you're a wounded warrior. Anything else just cheapens the verbiage and degrades the guys who deserve that designation far more than me or those with non-combat injuries.

I agree I recently made a donation to the Semper Fi fund, which helps families of Marines wounded in war. I assume that means guys in Iraq and Afghanistan who got a purple heart, as opposed to a retiree who fell of his roof and injured himself.

 

[JDARNELL]

Personally I'd think the sole criterion for being called a "wounded warrior" would be to look at your uniform. Is a Purple Heart pinned to it somewhere? Then you're a wounded warrior. Anything else just cheapens the verbiage and degrades the guys who deserve that designation far more than me or those with non-combat injuries.

I agree. I know when I go to the VA there is one area where they have some type of wounded warrior one stop inprocess/help or something else. I never go to that floor as I don't consider myself a wounded warrior. Still being on AD I am uncomfortable even going to the VA for treatment especially in uniform. I feel like I get to much attention and really don't want that. Many people will have health issues that were service connected however I think that is much different than "wounded warriors" I wonder if the CRCS (?) designator has something to do with this designation.

I recently saw a Doc from the public health area in BDUs not a military member. He told me "thank you for your service." I get really uneasy when someone says this to me as I was/and am doing what I agreed to do. Yes I am proud of my service time (for the most part) but tell the Vietnam guys/gals this and the guys/gals that are coming back today.

I also think a lot of the treatment and help we get today is because our country is guilty the way they treated the men and women from Vietnam. I am very grateful to all those who served ahead of me!

Tomcat98

 

[friar1610]

I thought MOAA had adopted the cynical marketing tactic of re-labeling "disabled retirees" as "wounded warriors" just to gain more lobbying support from a bunch of members of Congress (and their lobbyists and PACs) who've never owned a military ID and didn't have any appreciation of how those retirees got disabled in the first place. "Wounded warrior" certainly makes a bigger semantic impact on a clueless listener than "disabled retiree".

Personally I'd think the sole criterion for being called a "wounded warrior" would be to look at your uniform. Is a Purple Heart pinned to it somewhere? Then you're a wounded warrior. Anything else just cheapens the verbiage and degrades the guys who deserve that designation far more than me or those with non-combat injuries.

On your first point, I don't think the "WW" term is a MOAA creation. I've seen it in many other contexts to refer to, as your second point suggests, those who have real combat injuries, specifically from Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the term is generally used by the Services, the VA, the Veterans' Service Organizations (Legion, VFW, etc.) and elsewhere.

I can't prove what I say above, but that's certainly my impression.

 

[mickeyd]

Is a Purple Heart pinned to it somewhere? Then you're a wounded warrior.

WW is a bit more that just being awarded a PH IMHO. It refers to those folks that have suffered severe injuries or burns as a result of battle.

Many of us who have received a PH would not consider ourselves as Wounded Warriors as our wounds are not nearly as severe as WW.

Wounded Warrior Disabled Sport Project is a partnership between the Wounded Warrior Project and Disabled Sports USA that provides year-round sports programs for wounded service members from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts and the global war on terrorism. Recently, a group of wounded warriors hit the slopes in Breckenridge, Colorado where they received training and education that enabled them to sail down the slopes. Read the full story, watch a quick video and browse some photos depicting the warrior's achievements. The program aims to help the warriors master a new skill, so they can come away with the mindset, "If I can do this, I can do anything!"

Read more: Wounded Warrior Project - Home

 

[heardoc]

I recently saw a Doc from the public health area in BDUs not a military member.
Tomcat98

I just love seeing PHS members in a uniform with a chest full of medals.
The " late for lunch service ribbon" ; the "didn't get my GS 15 bump"; I'm sure they are bright, hard workers, but the whole wearing the uniform thing since DS I is a bit weird.

 

[Nords]

"Disabled retirees" doesn't seem to include only those military members who were severely wounded due to enemy action.

Prior to seeing this clip I was unaware that WW were covered by TFL/Medicare just like we old timers. I thought that they were somehow covered by tricare prime.

I'm equally ignorant, or perhaps I should say blissfully ignorant.

Here's a quote from another MOAA article:

Any wounded or injured servicemember accorded a 30-percent or greater disability rating is medically retired and subject to the same proposed TRICARE fee hikes as other retirees under age 65.
Those who are most severely injured are deemed Medicare-eligible and are required to pay Medicare Part B premiums ($100 or more a month) to be eligible for TFL as second payer to Medicare.

 

[friar1610]

I just love seeing PHS members in a uniform with a chest full of medals.
The " late for lunch service ribbon" ; the "didn't get my GS 15 bump"; I'm sure they are bright, hard workers, but the whole wearing the uniform thing since DS I is a bit weird.

It used to annoy me, when I was stationed in DC with the Navy, to see some of the PHS officers in uniform on the Metro. Not to say they all looked bad in uniform, but a number of them did: needed haircuts, sloppy uniforms, dirty cap covers, unshined shoes. The thing is that the average civilian probably couldn't distinguish their uniforms from Navy uniforms and likely thought they were USN. Grrrr....