Readers of Tom Philpott's Military Update column sound off.

New TRICARE-for-Life Fee Seen Breaking a Promise

As usual, your article on a proposed enrollment fee for older retirees goes right to the heart of the subject and gives all the facts, unfettered by inane commentary found so often in other newspaper columns.

Someone needs to tell Dr. Gail R. Wilensky that TRICARE for Life is already not free, as promised, for two reasons. One, we've already paid the premiums with 20 or more years of low-paid service that began prior to 1956. We accepted the low pay knowing we would have "these benefits" for life once we retired. It's not our fault we didn't die off sooner.

The second reason it's not free is our monthly payments to Medicare in the form of Part B premiums, a prerequisite to obtaining TRICARE coverage.

The task force obviously didn't have any retired enlisted members. The kicker is Wilensky's quote that an enrollment fee for TFL would "bind the retiree closer" to the health benefit. So, I should spend more time at the hospital, the doctor's office, the pharmacy?

I know what she is trying to say. If retirees have to pay something every time they see a doctor, or have to pay more for medicine, they may stay away. And that's the real objective, isn't it?

I wonder if the task force thought about recommending that we reduce medical costs by not putting members of the armed forces in harm's way needlessly.

LARS RUNAR
Via e-mail

It seems Dr. Wilensky does not understand the concept of "free medical care for life. "  That is exactly what we were promised and exactly what was finally recognized by Congress a number of years ago when TRICARE for Life was instituted.

It is not up to some committee to review the medical program and add fees as they think fit. When I pledged my life to my country, I did not reserve the right to review that commitment if the going got rough. My country does not have the right to review their pledge to me either, nor does Dr. Wilensky.

CHARLES M. DASHIELL, JR.
Captain, USN-Ret.
Via e-mail

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

Yes, we were promised free health care for life. If this "modest" enrollment fee is approved, they will have their foot in the door and we will see no end to increases in the enrollment fee in the future.

JAMES F. STROSSER
Senior Master Sergeant, USAF-Ret.
Via e-mail

As the widow of a career Navy man and a beneficiary of TFL, I have no problem paying a small fee for this important benefit. I believe the person who served and was promised care for life should not have to pay.

LAYNE C. RUMBAUGH
Phoenix, Ariz.

BAH RATE PROTECTION

I am very pleased that Basic Allowance for Housing rates are increasing for most service members and their families. I believe it is a much deserved benefit and one that we service members could look to count on as a small increase in pay every year.

Some of us this year, however, were shocked to see an actual decline in our BAH rate by as much as three to four percent for families and an increase for single members in the same area by almost 13 percent.

I agree that, dependants or no dependants, service members should get the same BAH benefit, but are we going to take allowances away from families to make up for the difference?

CHRIS C.
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

BAH did fall in your area for some service members with dependents under revised 2008 rates. However, geographic rate protection shields individuals and families already living there from the effect of lowered housing allowances tied to local rental costs. Lowered BAH rates only will apply to members who move into your area on or after Jan. 1, the effective date of '08 rates. -- Tom Philpott

It is outstanding to see BAH rising for almost all pay grades, single and married. Being stationed in the Baltimore/Washington area, where housing prices have doubled since 2000, it is good to see the BAH is attempting to catch up.

It will never be enough to buy in this area but at least now it almost covers rent.

KARL CRITIDES
Via e-mail

CRSC FOR CHAPTER 61 RETIREES

I just read your latest article on expansion of Combat-Related Special Compensation to more disabled retirees. There have been several articles this year about CRSC.

You mentioned the program's expansion to "Chapter 61" retirees in your recent column. I was rated 100 percent in 1970, then that percentage was reduced to 90 percent in 1974. About 12 years ago I was re-evaluated and again was awarded 100 percent IU [Individual Unemployability].

I had 13 years, 10 months in service when wounded. Do I qualify for CRSC under Chapter 61?

D. HUNTER WHITE
U.S. Navy SEAL -Ret.

It would seem so. CRSC eligibility is being expanded to Chapter 61 retirees, those forced to retire on medical disability short of 20 years. To be eligible, the Chapter 61 retirees must have combat-related disabilities but that could include injuries during training, or conditions resulting from an instrumentality of war such a stateside traffic accident while riding in a military vehicle. CRSC payments are based on 2.5 percent of base pay for each year served before retirement. It would from the date President Bush signs the bill (HR 1585).

Disabled retirees will have to apply for CRSC, a process that allows verification of disabling wounds, injuries or illnesses that meet the broad definition of combat-related.

The Department of Defense and the services will need some time to revise CRSC guidelines before Chapter 61 applications can be filed. Information will be posted on finance center web sites. CRSC for current recipients is described in detail at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service web site. - Tom Philpott

Letters may be edited for clarity or length. Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com