Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Which other military families have seen pg 189

How many other military families have seen page 189 of the Congressional Budget Office Report?

It suggests that, in an effort to balance the budget, Tricare for Life for retirees (basically, the retiree health care plan), be eliminated, because it's too expensive to maintain!

I was just wondering how many other people have seen this, and if they were just as bothered by it as I was?

If you are also upset that they're wanting to do away with this, please contact your congressmen and tell them so!

Here's the website to it:


Asked by sailorwifenmom at 3:22 PM on Jan. 26, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 24 (18,487 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (26)
  • You know what. While it doesn't state specifically doing away with TFL. It does mention altering the program. I think bringing this up for discussion is a great way to get attention and focus spent on military healthcare. There are so many homeless Vets out there that need care.  Altering this program could possibly further affect long term care for Vets and leave them out on the streets.  This was a medicare "add on" to help our veterans. I would hope that altering this program would be done only if absolutely necessary and all other options to preserve veteren benefits have been exhausted.


    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 4:05 PM on Jan. 26, 2009

  • It is cruel and sad. That's what I think.
    We had just in Alaska news story about WW II vets, Army wants to take away their retirement money . So our state Senators are asking Army to do something about.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:34 PM on Jan. 26, 2009

  • Friday, January 16, 2009
    Tricare for Life not on Chopping Block
    A viral e-mail campaign is unsettling military retirees over 65.
    Sourcing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, these e-mails
    claim that TRICARE for Life is at risk. These distress warnings are
    The report, on Budget Options, Volume 1: Health Care lists 115 options
    for reducing federal spending on health care, altering federal
    healthcare programs, and making substantive changes to the nation’s
    health insurance system. But these are not formal recommendations.
    The suggestion for TRICARE for Life is only Option 96 on the list.
    None are formal recommendations.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:44 PM on Jan. 26, 2009

  • A total of six proposals of the 115 might affect military health
    care. Other options include increasing health care cost sharing for
    family members of military personnel on active duty (Option 95);
    increasing health care cost sharing for military retirees under age 65
    (Option 97); and copayments and changes to enrollment for medical
    care provided by the Veterans Affairs Hospitals for enrollees without
    a service-connected disability (Options 28, 29 and 98)

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:44 PM on Jan. 26, 2009

  • The CBO report is a periodic report made every two years. The last
    such report was published in February of 2007 when CBO provided 250
    budget cutting options to Congress on altering federal spending and
    revenues, of which health care and Medicare changes were a part. What
    was unusual with this year’s health care report was that it was
    published in a separate volume.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:44 PM on Jan. 26, 2009

  • ROA would like to thank those members who brought this report to our
    attention. The Reserve Officers Association is concerned with
    legislation that might affect the military health readiness, and deny
    earned health benefits and will continue to track this issue. ROA
    leadership has been in discussions with other military and veteran
    associations and the consensus is that currently there is no serious
    risk. At this point there are no fires needing to be put out.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:45 PM on Jan. 26, 2009

  • BUT, the Alaska Army story is correct.

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:46 PM on Jan. 26, 2009

  • pg 189 does not suggest that these benefits be eliminated.
    it does, however, suggest that beneficiaries pay a minimum out of pocket co-pay of sorts.

    did you read it?

    Answer by heatherama at 3:54 PM on Jan. 26, 2009

  • I understand that it's just a recommendation, and it's one of many, and that this is a report that's put out periodically. However, if we don't express our opinions on things when they are still in the possible suggestions phase then we're less likely to be able to have our voices heard when it's farther along and something is becoming policy.

    There have been many changes to benefits offered to retirees, and with veterans benefits being the shambles that it is, this is not the place to start making cuts.

    I went to the government link myself and read it. I'm not suggesting that people panic over it, but they should let their congress members know this isn't a bucket they want them to be dipping in, so to speak. Basically, nip it in the bud, before it has the chance to get out of hand.

    (But I suggest that people do that for all areas of government - follow what's going on and be aware from the early stages.)

    Answer by sailorwifenmom at 3:56 PM on Jan. 26, 2009

  • so on what page does it say that tfl should be eliminated? because it's not on page 189.

    Answer by heatherama at 3:57 PM on Jan. 26, 2009