gardner6 said...Anyone know when the retiree's medical was last increased? I've asked empyrean, UC and LLNS. They either say they have no idea or point to each other as being responsible. Any information?
Thanks.
gardner6 said...
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
Comments
I can't recall if the lawsuit by retirees who believed they covered under UC was successful. If you were not part of that lab population that was retired prior to the contract change then you have no standing with UC whatsoever concerning medical retirement and queries to them will be shuttled to LLNS.
Someone who followed the lawsuit can speak to coverage under UC, if that was indeed successful.
The LLNL retiree lawsuit against UC ended in settlement. Including retiree legal fees, UC (or more likely DOE) paid almost $100 million. UC legal fees for their outside attorneys were probably comparable to retiree legal fees ($12 million). All class members received a payment for past damages and surviving members receive a yearly supplement towards medical costs. Class members were not returned to UC medical.