Marine Vignette #107, "Lifetime Medical Care Was Clearly Promised," by Gene Pool, Maj USMC
April 16 2000 at 8:00 AM Average Score 5.0 (2 people)
(Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner from IP address 209.130.139.187
Background:
The following is in regard to the present situation where medical benefits for retired military personnel have been seriously cut back, little by little through the years; and now, the federal government is denying that lifetime medical care for military retirees was ever promised at all. While younger Americans may believe that, there are still many of us around to say that that was definitely not the case at all! Major Pool, USMC (Ret.) is one of those who was there! And here is his statement.
*********
From: Gene Pool <MAJPOOL30@aol.com>
To: GunnyG@HotMail.Com
Subject: Network54 Auto Response: Lifetime Medical care was clearly promised
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:17:29 -0700
Gene Pool has replied (with title "Lifetime Medical care was
clearly promised"):
In 1948 my recruiter told me, and my father who signed for me,
that lifetime medical care was one of the benefits of a 20 year
plus career. I was taught this in 1955 as a student at the
Marine Corps recruiter's school at Parris Island, SC. From 1955
to 1958, as a Marine Recruiter in Greenwood, Mississippi I used
that promise as a main selling point to join and serve for a
career. In 1961 and 1962 as an instructor at Marine Corps
recruiter's school,Parris Island, SC I taught hundreds of
Marines that lifetime medical care was one of the many benefits
of making the Corps a career.
As a First Sergeant of Marines I counseled thousands of marines
on the benefits of making the Corps a career. The promise of
lifetime medical care was big on that list reasons to stay. I
repeated those promises many times as a platoon commander,
company commander, staff officer, and other assignments as a
leader of Marines.
This was important to me at Inchon, Seoul and the Chosin
campaign.It was important in Dom Rep and Viet Nam. It was
important to me when I retired in 1977. It is important to me
and my family now, especially since I turn 70 next month.
Looking back on all those promises that I made, which was policy
at the time, I am saddened that my country has made a lier out
of me. Its a matter of integrity. Marine First Sergeants frown
highly on having their integrity impuned. Marine Corps Mustang
Majors get down right pissed off.
Gene Pool
Major of Marines
Retired
-------------------------
From: MAJPOOL30@aol.com
To: gunnyg@hotmail.com (Richard Gaines)
Subject: Lifetime Medical Care
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:50:19 EDT
Gunny G.
Permission granted to include my thoughts about the promise of
lifetime medical care in your Marine Vignettes.
I am one of the Chosin Few who was one of the fortunate few who
1) Survived
2) Had a successful career in the finest organization in the
world
3) Had a
second career with an organization that recognized and
appreciated the value
of having a former Marine on their staff, and 4) Am still in
reasonably good health and do volunteer work as President of a statewide not for profit organization whose mission is to make life better for the unfortunate few that suffer with mental illness.
In my spare time I serve as a member of a national veterans
committee and drive a van once a month to haul disabled vets to the VA hospital about 150 miles away.
Keep up the good work and SEMPER FI
Gene Pool
Major of Marines
Retired
**************
My thanks, and
Semper Fidelis
to Major Pool
-Dick Gaines
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
From: "Larry Houg" punkin@mail.paulbunyan.net
To: MAJPOOL30@aol.com Save Address
CC: GunnyG@HotMail.com Save Address
Subject: LIFETIME MEDICAL CARE
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 21:28:25 +0000
SIR
I can not get thru to respond to you on Marine Vignettes 2
!!!!
Right On ! Good on you ! That is a great and eloquent
statement that you gave.
THE ONLY THING NECESSARY FOR EVILTO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD
MEN
TO DO NOTHING !!! I cant recall the author at this moment.
Please e-mail President Clinton and Congressmen with this
message. Get others to help you and keep the pressure on them
----[
hound them ] ---
SEMPER FI
Larry Houg
Veteran: TARAWA, SAIPAN, GUAM, AND IWO JIMA
Honorable Discharge at age 21
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
= N E W S R E L E A S E
=
= OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
= (PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
= WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
=
= PLEASE NOTE DATE
====================================================
No. 288-00
(703)695-0192(media)
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 26, 2000
(703)697-5737(public/industry)
TWO NEW SITES EXPAND FEHBP MILITARY RETIREE DEMO
In a move to expand alternative health care options to over-65
military
retirees, the Department of Defense announced today that it
recently expanded
the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP)
demonstration project to
include two new over-65 military retiree demonstration sites.
These additional sites are in the surrounding ZIP code areas of
Coffee
County, Ga., and Adair County, Iowa. They expand one of the
department's
projects to determine the most feasible way to provide health
care for
uniformed services Medicare-eligible beneficiaries and certain
others.
Members of the Military Coalition and the National
Military/Veterans
Alliance, two consortiums of organizations representing TRICARE
beneficiaries, randomly selected "seed" areas for the additional
program
sites in early April.
This congressionally mandated demonstration project allows
certain eligible
uniformed services beneficiaries to enroll in, and receive their
health care
through, a health plan in the FEHBP, the same program used by
civilian
federal employees and retirees. DoD will contribute the
standard government
amount, which is almost three-quarters of the plan's premium.
The expanded demonstration will target about 25,000 eligible
beneficiaries in
each location, increasing to 120,000 the number of beneficiaries
eligible for
the FEHBP demonstration. The Iowa site encompasses the entire
state (except
ZIP code areas in the Offutt Air Force Base's catchment area),
parts of
Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri. The
second site
includes parts of Georgia, Florida and South Carolina.
The next enrollment opportunity at all demonstration sites,
including the two
new ones, will begin in November 2000 during the FEHBP's annual
enrollment
open season. Coverage for new participants will begin Jan. 1,
2001, and will
run through Dec. 31, 2002. The U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM)
administers the FEHBP. OPM and DoD jointly administer the
DoD/FEHBP
demonstration project.
"We are attempting to find the best way to care for our senior
beneficiaries," according to Dr. Sue Bailey, assistant secretary
of defense
for Health Affairs. "We understand their belief in the promise
of health
care for life, and we want to try to meet it." Continuing, she
offered,
"These men and women served our country honorably and they
deserve our very
best efforts."
This fall, DoD will mail "The 2001 Guide to Federal Employees
Health Benefits
Plans participating in the DoD/FEHBP Demonstration Project" to
all eligible
persons within the designated ZIP code areas. The guide
contains a list of
participating health plans, benefits, premiums and other
information.
Information will be available in late summer on a series of
meetings about
the project that will be held in the areas of the new
demonstration sites.
Beneficiaries who meet eligibility criteria will receive
notification by
mail. Others may call the DoD/FEHBP Project Call Center
toll-free, 1 (877)
363-3342, for further information.
For a complete list of ZIP code areas to be served by the new
demonstration
sites, and other information about the FEHBP demonstrations,
visit the
Military Health System website: http://www.tricare.osd.mil/fehbp/
NOTE: This is a plain text version of a web page.
If your mail program did not properly format this
information, current News Releases are online at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/#BLUETOPS
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
WASHINGTON -- The Senate appears poised to back a 10-year, $40
billion increase in military retiree health-care benefits,
giving
more than 1 million former career service members over age 65
the
same health insurance coverage now offered to younger retirees.
The plan unveiled Tuesday by Virginia Sen. John W. Warner, who
for
months had insisted that such dramatic increases in coverage
were
unaffordable, is expected to win approval easily today. It would
not
take effect until October 2001, a delay Warner attributed to the
need
to give the Pentagon's Tricare insurance program time to prepare
to
serve the additional beneficiaries.
``We just figured out that we could get some additional funds,''
Warner said. ``It is expensive. But I believe it is essential,''
he
told colleagues. More than 124,000 military retirees reside in
Virginia; about 40,000 of them are 65 or older.
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said
his
proposal would keep a promise that generations of military
recruiters
and leaders made to those veterans -- that if they would stay in
uniform at least 20 years, they and their spouses would receive
lifetime medical care.
Warner asserted that ``there is no statutory foundation to the
claim,'' that the retirees are legally entitled to coverage. But
he
said Congress' decision in 1964 to force those over 65 into the
Medicare program amounts to ``a breach of promise.''
``It is time that we face that situation, because good faith
representations were made,'' he added.
While Warner called his plan ``a quantum leap forward,'' it
stops
short of providing the free care that a nationwide network of
retiree
activists has been demanding.
``It's obviously a response to the grass roots,'' said one
congressional staffer tracking the issue. With messages from
retirees
flooding congressional offices, Republican leaders decided they
needed a substantial reform bill to deprive the largely
Democratic
backers of free care of what could be a potent issue in the fall
election, he suggested.
A proposal to be put before senators this morning by Sen. Tim
Johnson, D-S.D., would let military retirees over 65 enroll --
at no
cost -- in the same health insurance program now available to
federal
civilian retirees.
Johnson's bill, which in another form was blocked from
consideration
in the House last month, would cost about $9 billion per year,
the
Congressional Budget Office says.
The House already has approved a considerably more modest
package of
military health-care reforms, including a plan to let Medicare
reimburse the Defense Department for care provided to retirees
over
65 at military hospitals. Critics say that proposal would do
little
to help the thousands of retirees who live far from military
bases
and hospitals.
Differences between the House and Senate plans mean the final
shape
of health-care improvements will not be resolved until later
this
year.
Warner and the Armed Services Committee staff used what appeared
to
be some creative accounting to get around military spending caps
included in a budget plan Congress adopted in April.
A five-year $400 million ``reserve fund'' for health care in
that
plan will cover $366 million in ``mandatory'' costs for the
first
three years of the, staffers said. That leaves future Congresses
to
cover an additional $9.7 billion in ``discretionary'' expenses
not
limited by the budget deal.
Military retirees under 65 currently have two choices for health
insurance. They may pay $230 per year to enroll in Tricare
Prime, the
military's health maintenance organization, or may opt for
Tricare
Standard, a more traditional plan that lets them choose their
physicians but requires them to pay annual deductibles and
covers
only 75 percent of most charges.
Those over 65, however, are forced out of Tricare and into the
Medicare program, which provides no prescription drug coverage.
Many
of the elderly retirees pay $5,000 or more annually on
supplemental
policies to fill gaps in their Medicare coverage. Similar
supplements
for those under 65 on Tricare Standard typically cost less than
$2,000.
Warner's plan would keep those over 65 under Medicare but would
make
Tricare the ``second-payer'' for their medical expenses, using
it to
replace the commercial supplement policies.
``If it's done right,'' the plan would put the supplemental
policies
out of business, said Chuck Partridge, a lobbyist for the
National
Association for the Uniformed Services, one of several retiree
groups
that has been lobbying for free care for retirees over 65.
``The whole thing hinges on the quality of the program,''
Partridge
suggested. If the Pentagon can solve other problems with
Tricare,
including low reimbursement rates for Tricare Prime that have
kept
thousands of physicians from participating in the program, many
retirees will be satisfied, he said.
But if those problems persist, retirees ``will be back at the
barricades,'' he predicted.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Re New Dental Plan Expands Services, Includes Reservists
No score for this post
June 13 2000, 2:07 PM
Subject:
MILINET: New Dental Plan Expands Services, Includes Reservists
Date:
Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:12:55 EDT
By Staff Sgt. Kathleen T. Rhem, USA
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 13, 2000 -- DoD's new TRICARE Dental Program
will feature lower premiums, expanded services and cost
ceilings, and will allow reservists and their families to
enroll.
DoD awarded a $1.8 billion, five-year contract in April to
United Concordia Companies Inc. of Camp Hill, Pa., the current
TRICARE Family Member Dental Plan administrator. Changes take
effect Feb. 1, 2001. “One of the most significant changes is
that reserve component members and their families will be
eligible to enroll,” said Navy Capt. Lawrence D. McKinley, the
TRICARE Management Activity's senior consultant for dentistry.
During the first two years of the contract, premiums for active
duty family members will drop from the current levels. The
$8.53 single and $21.33 family rates will drop to $7.63 and
$19.08 respectively during the first year, and remain below
current levels even during the second year. Premiums for
reservists on extended active duty and their families will
mirror those of active duty members, however premiums for
families of reservists not on active duty will be somewhat
higher. After the first two years, premiums may rise, but "will
remain very reasonable," McKinley said.
Other improvements include:
o The enrollment "lock-in" period falls from 24 months to 12.
That is, active duty members must have 12 months left on their
current term of service to enroll. Reservists must "express
intent" to remain in the reserves for at least 12 consecutive
months.
o United Concordia will take over enrollment responsibilities
from the services' personnel offices. McKinley said this should
improve customer service by allowing beneficiaries to deal
directly with the contractor. Current enrollees will
automatically transfer to the new system.
o The annual maximum for general dentistry increases from $1,000
to $1,200, and the lifetime maximum for orthodontic care goes
from $1,200 to $1,500.
o General anesthesia and intravenous sedation will be covered.
o Coverage of diagnostic and preventive services expands.
Most of the changes stem from customer feedback. "We've been
listening to the beneficiaries. We've incorporated as many of
their suggestions as possible," McKinley said. "We also listened
to concerns from line commanders about dental readiness and the
quality of life of their people."
He also said DoD officials constantly monitor civilian insurance
programs. The new TRICARE plan, he said, "easily matches most
insurance programs of Fortune 500 companies and is better than
many."
McKinley stressed the program will evolve over the five years of
the contract. TMA officials monitor civilian plans to pick up on
trends and to look at things worth adopting. “Each option
year,
we will review what we have, and we will improve as we go along
if costs will not be increased," he added.
DoD and United Concordia plan to conduct customer-satisfaction
surveys monthly. For more information, beneficiaries can call
United Concordia's toll-free customer-service line, 1-800-866-
8499 or visit the company's Web
site at www.ucci.com.
##END##
NOTE: This is a plain text version of a web page.
If your mail program did not properly format this
information, current News Articles are online at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/#News Articles
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Info: A pass-along from VETERANS RADIO ON THE INTERNET
No score for this post
August 4 2000, 8:29 AM
From:
"Mark Widerstrom" <markwiderstrom@hotmail.com> Save Address - Block Sender
To:
GunnyG@hotmail.com Save Address
Subject:
Fwd: A pass-along from VETERANS RADIO ON THE INTERNET
Date:
Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:40:21 GMT
GUNNY--- do you know about this group who are putting up bill boards and
have a huge group working on the medical delima in the service and retired
Folks??
I saw your post on Joyce Riley's site and fowarding this to you ALSO GUNNY
let all your vet buddies know on email about VETERANS RADIO. I just started
it on the internet
I do from 7am till 8 am central most days if I get up in time Veterans
email and issues and helps and information.
At 8 -am central time in the monring play the Bo Gritz Show called
Freedom Call. He is a decorated Vet from the Vietnam War and talks about
freedoms and veterans Issues.
At 11-am central time I do the Alex Jones show called INFOWARS- he talks
about the One World Order and things hapening in the US like Prison camps
for people, gun take aways by Clinton and other issues. He also has a web
site at www.infowars.com/
After Alex Jones Ill see if there are any Veterans who have anything for
the show imput gripes Grumps Bitche* and other things, and then talk about
gent Orange and veterans Issues.
At 4pm daily Mon thru Friday I play the Joyce Riley Show till 6pm ,a nd
other shows if they sound interesting and if have veterans issues.
I also ask if vets want something talked about let me know or if you have
things youd like to get off your chest also let me know. IM a Disabled
Veteran fromt he Vietnam War and STill IN the Fox HOLE fighting The Enemy
and the Freedoms. ALSO GUNNY all i ask is that if you have a gripe or
anything and write to a senator or congressman you tell them all your
concerns with allot of other veterans goes out over
my radio site is at the bottom, of the page you can use inamp a free player
located at www.winamp.com/ to hear my show and not have to buy real player.
ALSO GUNNY the man who gives me a link is also putting a box under veterans
radio or a page for me where I can put up daily shows and other things.
Gunny let your buddles know and God Bless
Mark At Veterans Radio
From: Floyd Sears <fsears@bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: fsears@bellsouth.net
To: lonestargrp@west-point.org
Subject: A pass-along from Phil Alperson
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 17:57:03 -0500
To Military Retiree E-mail Network:
I normally just pass e-mails along without comment, but this is an
exception.
After looking at the indicated web page in the attachment, these
thoughts came to mind. We have worked to educate the Congress, the
President, the Courts, and the American people, but we forgot about the
current active duty military.
I had forgotten about the age difference. How old would a Colonel
currently on active duty be? Maybe 35? That means that he has been in
the service for 15 years? That means he came in the service about 1985?
Maybe my numbers are wrong but stay with me.
We have (at least I have) made the assumption that the active duty
military knew exactly what we are doing in reference to the military
retiree medical care broken promise issue and why we are doing it. Am I
wrong? Do the senior NCO's and seniors Officers really understand the
problem we are working on?
Will we have to educate the active duty folks also?
Does a person on active duty really understand what the VA does for a
military retiree?
Do they understand that at the VA military retiree means little or
nothing?
Do they understand that "service connected injury or sickness" is the
key words at the VA?
Will we become the villains as this series play out?
Hey! How come nobody likes us anymore?
Are yesterdays heros todays bums?
Tune in tomorrow folks as the big wheel keeps on turning and proud
military retirees keep on burning.
SURPRISE!!! Just in case you can not access the web page in question I
have the article below my ID block. Notice how I'm causing you to scroll
through some web pages in my ID block that I would also would like for
you to look at. Is that tricky?
The article.......................................
Veterans' Gripe Is Loud and Clear
By Thomas E. Ricks
Thursday , August 3, 2000 ; A27
The National Veterans Organization, a group of veterans unhappy with
their benefits, has put up billboards in Texas and New Mexico
discouraging people from enlisting in the military.
"Thinking about a military career?" the billboards ask. "Think again."
The move provoked a phone call to the group's leader, the interestingly
named Douglas McArthur, from Col. Curtis Taylor, an official in the
Pentagon's manpower office.
McArthur, a disabled Navy vet, said the colonel told him that "we're
having enough recruiting problems now and that sign is just going to
make it worse."
Taylor didn't return calls for comment. A Pentagon spokesman said that
the colonel simply was making inquiries and advising the unhappy vets
that their gripe is more with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
McArthur says the group has no plans to take down the sign. "That was
the intent: to get their attention," he said. "We're putting more
[signs] up around the country."
From:
"Alperson, Phil" <Phil.Alperson@mail.house.gov>
To:
"Alperson, Phil" <Phil.Alperson@mail.house.gov>
Subject:
Update on Shows-Norwood Keep Our Promise Act
Date:
Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:34:42 -0400
Hello.
Today's Washington Post (Thursday Aug 3, 2000) carries a story
about the
billboards. The link below will show you the story. A picture
of a
billboard appears in the newspaper, but does not appear on the
Post's web
site.
"The National Veterans Organization, a group of veterans unhappy
with their
benefits, has put up billboards in Texas and New Mexico
discouraging people
from enlisting in the military."
PHIL ALPERSON
Legislative Director
Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-Mississippi 4th)
509 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
GyGsMailbag: VA Boosts Service For Purple Heart Vets...
No score for this post
August 29 2000, 12:24 PM
(Via Milinet)
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Aug. 29, 2000 -- Veterans who've earned the Purple
Heart medal now receive faster service and save money when they
access Department of Veterans Affairs health care.
A public law passed late last year by Congress, the Veterans
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, extended new benefits
to Purple Heart recipients, Kent Simonis, Veteran Affairs'
director for health administration services, said in an Aug. 22
interview with the American Forces Information Service.
Simonis said Purple Heart veterans have been placed in a higher-
priority category for VA healthcare services and no longer need
to make co-payments for inpatient or outpatient VA medical
services. The change affects the seven-step priority system that
Congress established for VA health care.
"Under the new system, the minimum classification for Purple
Heart veterans is now priority group 3," he said. "That is very
good news for Purple Heart recipients, in that they are
virtually assured of VA health care services now and well into
the future."
Before the change, Purple Heart recipients often were placed in
priority groups 4 through 7, Simonis said. Those who qualified
for priority groups 1 or 2 because of service-connected
disabilities will remain in those groups, he added.
Veterans Affairs health care priority categories include:
o Group 1: veterans assigned a service-connected disability
rating of 50 percent or greater.
o Group 2: veterans assigned a service-connected disability
rating of 30 or 40 percent.
o Group 3: veterans who are Purple Heart recipients or former
prisoners of war; or who have 10 or 20 percent service-connected
disability; or who were discharged from active duty because of a
disability incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; or who
were awarded special eligibility under 38 U.S. Code, Section
1151, "Benefits for individuals disabled by VA treatment or
vocational rehabilitation."
o Group 4: veterans receiving aid in attendance or housebound
pension benefits, or who've been determined by VA to be
catastrophically disabled.
o Group 5: veterans with no service-connected disabilities and
those with service-connected disabilities rated zero percent,
and noncompensated veterans whose income and net worth are below
the established dollar threshold (about $27,000).
o Group 6: World War I and Mexican border war veterans; veterans
receiving care in relation to exposure to toxic substances such
as Agent Orange and radiation; or compensated zero percent,
service connected veterans.
o Group 7: nonservice-connected veterans and zero percent
nonservice-connected vets whose income and net worth are above
the established dollar threshold and who agree to make specified
co-payments.
Purple Heart recipients will also save money under the new
policy. Veterans making over $27,000 per year typically have to
make a co-payment, currently $50.80 per each outpatient visit.
Purple Heart recipients are no longer make those co-payments,
regardless of income, Simonis said.
He said the VA would reimburse Purple Heart veterans for any co-
payments they've made for VA healthcare received after Nov. 29,
1999.
However, he added, Purple Heart recipients are still required to
pay $2 for each 30-day supply of prescription medication
provided to outpatients for conditions not related to military
service.
Possession of the Purple Heart medal doesn't by itself qualify
veterans for VA disability compensation, Simonis said. Veterans
need to be screened by a VA process for that.
Purple Heart recipients claiming VA health benefits must prove
they have been awarded the decoration. Veterans Affairs will
accept the Defense Department Form 214, discharge papers,
military personnel records, orders or award certificates.
The Purple Heart traces its lineage to the U.S. military's
oldest decoration, the Badge of Military Merit, first presented
by George Washington to three soldiers in 1782. The Purple Heart
indicates meritorious military service and is awarded to service
members who've been wounded during action against the enemy, to
include wounds incurred during captivity. (See sidebars).
For more Veterans Affairs benefits information, see the agency's
Web site at www.va.gov.
##END##
NOTE: This is a plain text version of a web page.
If your mail program did not properly format this
information, current News Articles are online at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/#News Articles
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
GyGsMailbag: Pentagon Opposes Plan To End Age Bias In Military Health System
No score for this post
September 1 2000, 1:43 PM
Please forward Far and Wide!!!
Thank You.
Dick G
(Via Milinet)
From:
MAJUSMCRET@aol.com Save Address - Block Sender
To:
undisclosed-recipients:; Save Address
Subject:
MILINET: Pentagon Opposes Plan To End Age Bias In Military Health System
Date:
Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:03:18 EDT
Newport News Daily Press
September 1, 2000
Military Update
Pentagon Opposes Plan To End Age Bias In Military Health System
By Tom Philpott
As House and Senate conferees begin to debate a Senate plan to
end
``age discrimination'' in military health care, the Clinton
administration has come out against this and other expensive
initiatives aimed at helping elderly beneficiaries.
The plans not only are too costly, Defense officials argue, but
they
could end up draining funds from more critical defense programs.
The most sweeping change opposed by the Pentagon would give
elderly
beneficiaries the same health care options available to under-65
retirees and spouses, including enrollment in TRICARE Prime, the
military's managed care program, or use of TRICARE Standard, the
military fee-for-service insurance plan formerly called CHAMPUS.
``We're creating an entitlement without any sense of where the
dollars are going to come from,'' said Bernard D. Rostker, under
secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, in an
interview.
``It is in that context that we say, `Wait a minute.' ''
The administration also opposes the Senate's call to allow
retirees
to receive, concurrently, both full military retired pay and
full
disability pay for service-related injuries or illnesses.
Retired pay
now must be reduced, dollar-for-dollar, by disability
compensation.
In an August 7 letter to Congress, Defense Secretary William
Cohen
said lifting the ban on concurrent receipt of retired pay and
disability compensation would increase defense spending by more
than
$3 billion a year. In the same letter, Cohen opposed proposals,
more
likely to be approved, that would expand retiree medical
benefits.
Under current law, when beneficiaries turn 65 and become
eligible for
Medicare, they lose the right to use TRICARE Prime and Standard.
Their access to in-service care suddenly shifts to a
``space-available'' basis. Space and staff to treat the elderly
have
become increasingly unavailable since the military moved in the
1990s
to managed care.
Angry retirees put pressure on Congress this year, via a
grassroots
campaign, to fulfill past promises of free lifetime health care,
even
though courts have held the promises were not back by statute
and
therefore were not legally binding.
The Senate developed the more ambitious health care reform
package.
The highlight was an amendment from Sens. John Warner (R.-Va.),
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Tim
Hutchinson
(R-Ark.) to open TRICARE to beneficiaries of any age. It passed
the
Senate by an overwhelming vote, 96-to-1.
Because the cost -- $40 billion over 10 years -- would violate
budget
ceilings, Warner had his amendment start on Oct. 1, 2001, and
run
only through Sept. 30, 2003. He hopes to be able to add a couple
of
years to that date during negotiations with House conferees.
Warner
also vowed to challenge presidential candidates George W. Bush
and Al
Gore to commit to making the amendment permanent and fully
funded.
A senior Senate staff member said both Warner and Sen. Carl
Levin
(Mich.), the armed services committee's ranking Democrat, know
that
the Defense Department opposes the amendment. Neither ``is
terribly
influenced by it,'' the staffer added. Warner intends to fight
hard
for his amendment in conference, he said.
Rostker cited a Congressional Budget Office estimate that
extending
TRICARE options to the elderly would cost $24 billion over the
six-year defense plan.
``We have major weapon systems that don't have that kind of
financial
commitment,'' he said. ``On the one hand, it certainly clears up
any
ambiguity as to what was promised, when, to whom. On the other,
we
would like to have a clearer understanding of what is
affordable.''
The Senate adopted the Warner amendment without a plan to pay
for it,
Rostker said. Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff are worried, he
added,
though they led the fight inside the Pentagon to improve the
healthcare access of retirees.
``The chiefs had taken a position just recently that they cannot
afford to see us spending more and more and more money on health
care,'' Rostker said.
A JCS spokesman said the chiefs still favor improvements in
health
care, particularly for older beneficiaries. They are concerned,
however, that Congress is doing what the chiefs warned against,
approving new benefits without raising the defense budget's top
line.
``Nobody signed up to have another unfunded requirement levied
on
us,'' he said.
If conferees reject the Warner plan, older beneficiaries still
stand
to gain, Rostker said. That's because the bill contains a
provision,
fully funded, that would open to service elderly the same mail
order
pharmacy plan and TRICARE retail pharmacy benefit available to
younger beneficiaries. The likely start date would be April 1,
2001.
``If you really look at their medical expenditures...what's
killing
them [financially] is not the six-month doctor visit [but] the
$200 a
month for medicine,'' said Rostker.
Paul Arcari, director of government relations for The Retired
Officers Association, said Cohen's opposition to the Warner
amendment
and other health reforms in the defense bill ``is inconsistent
with
his recent speeches, talking about the necessity of improved
retiree
health care. It's a major disappointment to all retirees.''
Rostker, however, said retirees need to adjust expectations.
Military
treatment facilities lack the capacity to care for all of them.
Also,
the military system is designed, like a lot of health care
programs,
for Medicare to step in and treat older beneficiaries.
``For most Americans, there is a change in health insurance
status
when you turn 65, because of Medicare. And that's what we do in
this
program,'' said Rostker.
He even suggested that the Warner plan, if adopted, could push
away
from military health care some retirees and family members too
young
to qualify for Medicare, which would leave them feeling even
more
disenfranchised, he said.
But Virginia Torsch, a health benefit expert for TROA, said,
``Eventually, DoD is going to have to step up and acknowledge
they
have a requirement to fulfill that lifetime health care
commitment.
And they're going to have to find the funding.''
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Fair and balanced Military Retiree Healthcare reporting...
No score for this post
September 30 2000, 9:10 PM
To:
<letters@washpost.com>
From:
"Art Garland" <artsr3@home.com> | Block
address
Date:
Sat, 30 Sep 2000 19:16:46 -0400
Subject:
[firebase-news] Fair and balanced Military
Retiree Healthcare reporting
Add Addresses
I take great exception to the rotten face you gave
concerning the
Retired Military vis-a-vis the Nuclear Weapons Plant
Workers, in the
bi-story editorial, purportedly on page A32 of your
newspaper Sept.
29th, 2000. It was distributed to all the Grass Roots
Military
Retirees supporting the redress of the wrongs perpetrated
on us wherein
congress denied our Promised Health Care for Life, which
they and all
other federal workers permanently enjoy.
The promise of free healthcare after 20 years of service
was clearly made by
recruiters anf retention personnel until 1985. It was in
recruiting
pamphlets and retention manuals. It's the government
that broke the
promise. We served faithfully and EARNED this benefit,
(would you deny DC
policemen their promised healthcare benefits). Congress
members only have
to serve 5 years for theirs, they are not sent all over
the world ever time
a president gets in political difficulty at home. They
do not have to be
away from family and friends for extended periods of
time, under deplorable
living conditions, go days without a shower or hot meal.
It was the military that achieved your right to publish
your rag, continued
to insure your right to publish, and continues to do
today.
I surely feel for those nuclear workers that were lied to
by the
"contractor", after all we have been lied to for
decades. Their claim,
however is for work connected injury and with the
"contractor" first and the
government second. They were never promised "lifetime
healthcare", we were.
It would be nice if you would print this correction to
your incorrect
editorial.
I took this from a message board ..... though it was
something we all should
know......please pass it on
As a WWII vet, I can tell you that we were told that we
would get free
medical treatment for the rest of our lives! This could
have been
accomplished if the government had followed the
Constitution, and under
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, Congress would have
ordered the Treasury
to create all the money necessary (deb-free) to fund such
a program (not
a dollar had to be picked from the pockets of
taxpayers)! This is what
is called "Constitutional Money," and was used the last
time by the
Lincoln administration to fund the northern efforts
during the Civil
War (after which there was no debt, nor interest to pay
on debt)!
What our government is deathly afraid of is the general
public's
knowledge of this article (put in by our founding
fathers), which allows
the government to fund its own needs, thus eliminating
debt, interest on
debt, and the need for income tax and other federal
taxes, including a
Federal Reserve (the Treasury can carry on the same
duties at no cost!)!
All inflation is caused by the cost of money (interest)
and taxation!
There is no shortage of money for any need, except that
which is created
by ignorance or avoidance of the forgoing article!
Sadly, only about 1%
to 2% of our citizens know this (what I am writing
about), and the rest
are kept in the dark by misinformation and misteaching!
The effects of the above "pick pocket economics," are
unpayable debt
with interest going up faster than it can be paid off,
and most of the
American people being turned into "wage slaves, and debt
payers," with
95% of them having title to nothing (no ownership), but
supporting the
"idle creditors," better known in generaitons past, as
"money changers!"
I am certain, that if I were to wrtie a book about the
above, the
government would try their best to keep it from being
published! An
educated populace is not in the government's best
interest, unless it
follows the "government line and dictates!" It is only a
"nation of
sheep, that begets a government of wolves!"
If you have any comments on what I have written, be it
pro or con,
please let me know!
Jack Denton 01-15-01 @ 4:30 P.M.
*****
Dick Gaines
Old Salt Marines Forum
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Here's Why They Know They Can get Away With It!
by Dick G
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines)
Forum Owner
THE BONUS ARMY OF 1932
--by Brian R. Train--
(welcome to the students of History 151 at UMASS!)
Hard economic times always incur a certain amount of social dislocation and consequently create opportunities for politically extreme movements. The global economic event that began in 1929, known as the Great Depression, allowed radical movements of the Left and Right to make headway in Europe during the 1930's. As one of the major industrial powers and one of the hardest hit by the Great Depression, radical groups like these could have posed a serious challenge to public order inthe United States. There were many instances of labour unrest and strikes that turned violent, incidents that prompted temporary mobilisations of state National Guards. There were also instances where regular Army troops were called out in aid of the civil power. The worst incident of this type was the Bonus Army March in Washington in the summer of 1932.
At the end of World War One, as the American Expeditionary Force was being demobilised, a grateful U.S. government passed legislation that authorised the payment of cash bonuses to war veterans, adjusted for length of service, in 1945. However, the Crash of 1929 wiped out many veterans' savings and jobs, forcing them out into the streets. Groups of veterans began to organise and petition the government to pay them their cash bonus immediately. In the spring of 1932, during the worst part of Depression, a group of 300 veterans in Portland, Oregon organised by an ex-Sergeant named Walter Walters named itself the 'Bonus Expeditionary Force' or 'Bonus Army,' and began travelling across the country to Washington to lobby the government personally. By the end of May over 3,000 veterans and their families had made their way to the capital. Most of them lived in a collection of makeshift huts and tents on the mud flats by the Anacostia River outside of the city limits. Similar ghettos could be found sheltering the migrant unemployed and poor outside any large city in the United States and were called 'Hoovervilles.' By July, almost 25,000 people lived in Anacostia, making it the largest Hooverville in the country.
In June, the Patman Bonus Bill, which proposed immediate payment of the veterans' cash bonuses, was debated in the House of Representatives. There was stiff resistance from Republicans loyal to President Hoover, as the estimated cost of the bill was over $2 billion and the Hoover Administration was adamant about maintaining a balanced budget. The bill passed in the Congress on June 15, but was defeated in the Senate only two days later. In response, almost 20,000 veterans slowly shuffled up and down Pennsylvania Avenue for three days in a protest local newspapers titled the 'Death March.'
As the weather and the rhetoric grew hotter, concern grew that the Bonus Army Marchers could cause widespread civil disorder and violence. There were scuffles with the police and some Senators' cars were stoned by unruly crowds of veterans. Retired Marine General Smedley Butler, an immensely popular figure among veterans and who had become a vocal opponent of the Hoover Administration, participated in Bonus Army demonstrations and made inflammatory speeches (He would be approached in 1933 by Fascist sympathisers in the American Legion, who would try to involve him in an actual plot to seize power in a coup d'etat.). It was alleged at the time that the March was directed by the Communist Party of the USA in pursuit of a genuine revolution, but it has since been established that the Party's only actual involvement was sending a small number of agitators and speakers. Nevertheless, President Hoover considered the Bonus Army Marchers a threat to public order and his personal safety. Contrary to tradition, he did not attend the closing ceremonies for that session of Congress on July 16 and many members left the Capitol building through underground tunnels to avoid facing the demonstrators outside.
Many of the Marchers left Washington after Congress adjourned, but there were still over 10,000 angry, restless veterans in the streets. On July 28, 1932, two veterans were shot and killed by panicked policemen in a riot at the bottom of Capitol Hill. This provided the final stimulus. Hoover told Ralph Furley, the Secretary of War, to tell General Douglas Macarthur, then the Army Chief of Staff, that he wished the Bonus Army Marchers evicted from Washington. Troops from nearby Forts Myer and Washington were ordered in to remove the Bonus Army Marchers from the streets by force.
One battalion from the 12th Infantry Regiment and two squadrons of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment (under the command of Major George S. Patton, who had taken over as second in command of the Regiment less than three weeks earlier) concentrated at the Ellipse just west of the White House. At 4:00 p.m. the infantrymen donned gas masks and fixed bayonets, the cavalry drew sabres, and the whole force (followed by several light tanks) moved down Pennsylvania Avenue to clear it of people.
Against the advice of his assistant, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, Macarthur had taken personal command of the operation. President Hoover had ordered Macarthur to clear Pennsylvania Avenue only, but Macarthur immediately began to clear all of downtown Washington, herding the Marchers out and torching their huts and tents. Tear gas was used liberally and many bricks were thrown, but no shots were fired during the entire operation. By 8:00 p.m. the downtown area had been cleared and the bridge across the Anacostia River, leading to the Hooverville where most of the Marchers lived, was blocked by several tanks.
That evening Hoover sent duplicate orders via two officers to Macarthur forbidding him to cross the Anacostia to clear the Marchers' camp, but Macarthur flatly ignored the President's orders, saying that he was 'too busy' and could not be bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders.' Macarthur crossed the Anacostia at 11:00 p.m., routed the marchers along with 600 of their wives and children out of the camp, and burned it to the ground. Then, incredibly, he called a press conference at midnight where he praised Hoover for taking the responsibility for giving the order to clear the camp. He said, 'Had the President not acted within 24 hours, he would have been faced with a very grave situation, which would have caused a real battle.... Had he waited another week, I believe the institutions of our government would have been threatened.' Ralph Furley, the Secretary of War, was present at this conference and praised Macarthur for his action in clearing the camp, even though he too was aware that Hoover had given directly contrary orders. It was this sort of insubordination and manipulation that would lead to Macarthur being summarily relieved of his command of the UN forces in Korea in 1951.
The last of the Bonus Army Marchers left Washington by the end of the following day. Hoover could not publicly disagree with his Chief of Staff and Secretary of War, and ended up paying the political cost of this incident. The possibility of widespread civil unrest growing into a popular revolution had been averted, but the forceful eviction of the Bonus Army Marchers, even though not one shot had been fired and only four people killed (the two demonstrators who had been shot by the police and two infants asphyxiated by tear gas), helped to tilt public opinion against Hoover and certainly contributed to his defeat in the 1932 election.
In the end, some money was paid to veterans but not without further difficulties. Within a year of the Bonus Army Incident, President Roosevelt imposed the Economy Act of 1933 which cut veterans disability allowances by 25%. In the effort to cut federal expenses, veterans were viewed as having inordinate special status over civilians. During the 1932 election campaign, he had publicly proclaimed: "No one [merely] because he wore a uniform must therefore be placed in a special class of beneficiaries over and above all other citizens. The fact of wearing a uniform does not mean that he can demand and receive from his government a benefit which no other citizen receives." Congress, nevertheless, quickly restored the cut in benefits. Pressure from veterans' groups continued until a lump-sum bonus law was passed over Roosevelt's veto in 1936. Eventually $2.5 billion was awarded to veterans of World War One.
NOTE TO PLAGIARISTS: If you are going to just copy this text, add your name and submit it as a term paper, be aware that I have placed a small but significant error in this paper. If your teacher is any less lazy than you are, it will be found and you will be caught. However, if your motives are honest and you have read more than one document on the Bonus Army or the Hoover Government, then you will be able to catch the error and correct it.
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACCESSED 6915 TIMES SINCE 6 May 2002
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner 209.130.218.102
Frustrated Veterans, Col Bud Day, Bush, etc.
No score for this post
December 25 2002, 10:08 AM
Boston Globe Online: Print it!
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Frustrated veterans accuse Bush of breaking
promise
By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 12/22/2002
WASHINGTON - The leaders of America's most
prominent veterans organizations say that
President Bush is failing to honor past
commitments to military men and women even as he
prepares to send a new generation of soldiers and
sailors into combat.
The administration's support for rescinding
lifetime health benefits for World War II and
Korean War veterans and continuing problems at
veterans hospitals stand as proof, veteran
leaders say, that America is more than willing to
lean on its soldiers during times of war but
tolerates them serving as political props in
peacetime.
Coming after President Clinton, who avoided
service in Vietnam and had a strained
relationship with the military, veterans leaders
say they had high expectations for Bush, who
served in the National Guard and whose father was
a fighter pilot during World War Two.
''I'm terribly frustrated and extremely angry,''
said retired Air Force Colonel George ''Bud''
Day, a Republican who won the Medal of Honor and
was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam with
Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Day said Bush is violating his oft-repeated
campaign pledge to veterans: ''A promise made is
a promise kept.''
''Obviously, he didn't know what that meant or
he's too preoccupied to see that his word is
kept,'' Day said.
Many veterans are particularly galled that the
Bush administration has not backed away from a
1995 decision to rescind a promise of free
lifetime health care benefits for soldiers, who
from 1941 to 1956 had been told that if they
signed up and served 20 years they and their
dependents would get free care. The government
stopped honoring that pledge in 1995, and many
veterans 65 and older have been forced to pay for
benefits through Medicare, which now costs about
$60 a month and pays for 80 percent of medical
care after a $100 deductible has been paid.
Day has represented a group of veterans hoping to
get the free health care restored, but the US
Court of Appeals in Washington ruled last month
that the recruiters who promised the free care
did not have the standing to do so.
Officials from Disabled American Veterans, the
American Legion, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars
protested the decision.
The issue could become a factor in the 2004
presidential race because Day said he will ask
the Supreme Court to hear the case. Because of
the court's schedule, the case might not be heard
until late 2003 or early 2004 - if at all.
The Justice Department refused to make the
attorneys handling the case available for an
interview, and Justice spokesman Charles Miller
declined to comment.
Deputy White House spokesman Scott McClellan
would not respond to criticism of the Bush
administration's record on veterans benefits or
explain why the administration has supported the
1995 decision.
''President Bush has had a chance to rectify
this, and he hasn't done it,'' said Ronald F.
Conley, national commander of the American
Legion. ''Before we spend one dime rebuilding
Afghanistan and rebuilding Iraq after we bomb it
to smithereens, we ought to take care of our
veterans.''
Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry, a decorated
Vietnam War veteran who is considering a White
House run in 2004, questioned the 1995 decision,
the current administration's defense of it, and
the November ruling.
''It is extraordinary to me that you give your
entire career in defense of this country and then
have to go to court to make the government keep
their promise,'' Kerry said. ''What's the message
we're sending to our troops around the world
today and those prepared to fight in Iraq? The
message seems to be, `Do your duty to country but
your country won't fulfill its duty to you when
you return home.'''
Hoping to get the president to disavow the 1995
decision on veterans health care, Day said he
used a Medal of Honor reception in June to ask
Bush about it personally.
''I said to him, `Mr. President, I'm Colonel Bud
Day. You know your campaign [promise], a promise
made is a promise kept, is being broken.' His
eyes just glazed over,'' Day said. ''He really
had no idea what I was talking about.''
With his wife fuming at her husband's directness
with the president, Day said he explained the
circumstances of the case. Lawyers from the
current Justice Department have defended the '95
decision in court, so Day was hoping Bush would
withdraw support for the case. Instead, Day said
the president told him, ''`Colonel, you really
need to talk to [Veterans Affairs Secretary
Anthony] Principi.'''
After pushing more with the VA, Day said he
''realized this was a dry hole.''
Veterans have experienced such disappointment
before. Rhetorical support for veterans has been
a staple of political discourse throughout the
country's history, but veterans have long
struggled to get promised benefits.
After fighting with poor weapons, equipment, and
uniforms to win the Revolutionary War, only 3,000
American servicemen received pensions. Veterans
of the Spanish-American War, disgusted with the
lack of care available to them after their
service, founded the VFW in 1899.
But benefits and care for veterans was still slim
by the time World War I ended. Veterans of that
war had seen their savings wiped out in the stock
market crash of 1929 and pushed for the early
distribution of monetary bonuses Congress had
authorized. They set up tents and huts in
Washington to make their point to Congress but
were forcefully evicted from the area by Major
General Douglas MacArthur in 1932.
The GI Bill of Rights educated and housed a
generation of soldiers in the 1940s and 1950s.
Free lifetime medical care was another benefit
for two decades of service.
Now, that free care has been ended. Veterans can
still be cared for at VA medical facilities, but
the wait for non-emergency treatment is long.
Citing a report indicating that more than 300,000
veterans are waiting for primary care
appointments at VA facilities, the American
Legion is launching a national campaign to alert
federal legislators to the problem. The American
Legion is sending out booklets on the problem to
its 15,000 posts and collecting personal stories
of ''backlogged'' veterans to tell Congress early
next year.
VA spokesman Phil Budahn said the agency does not
try to defend the delays veterans experience in
getting care. ''There's enormous frustration from
the secretary's office all the way down,'' Budahn
said. ''We just don't have the staff to see them
as quickly as we would like. We're fighting for
the best appropriations we can get.''
Togo West Jr., secretary of Veterans Affairs from
1998 to 2000, said the VA often struggles to keep
up with costs because health care is increasingly
expensive and the agency's clientele is older and
sicker than the general population.
''We don't ever get to do as much as we want for
veterans,'' West said.
This story ran on page A26 of the Boston Globe on
12/22/2002.
Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner 209.130.218.102
Col Bud Day (Bio)
No score for this post
December 25 2002, 10:11 AM
COLONEL (DOCTOR) GEORGE E. "BUD" DAY (RETIRED)
Colonel George E. Day is a veteran of more than 30 years service in the Armed Forces of the United States.
Colonel Day was born in Sioux City, Iowa, on February 24, 1925. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree and Doctor of Humane Letters from Morningside College in Sioux City, Iowa. He has also been awarded a Master of Arts degree from St. Louis University, a Juris Doctor from the University of South Dakota and a Doctor of Laws from Troy State University. He was admitted to the South Dakota Bar in 1949 and the Florida Bar in 1977.
He joined the Marine Crops in 1942 and served 30 months in the South Pacific as a noncommissioned officer. He received an appointment as a Second Lieutenant in the National Guard in 1950.
He was called to active duty in the Air Force in 1951 and entered jet pilot training. He served two tours in the Far East as a fighter-bomber pilot during the Korean War.
In April 1967, Colonel Day was assigned to the 31st Tac Fighter Wing at Tuy Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam. He later moved to Phu Cat Air Base where he organized and became the first commander of the "Misty Super FAC's" F-100 squadron.
Shot down over North Vietnam on August 26, 1967, he spent 67 months as a Prisoner of War. Colonel Day was the only POW to escape from prison in North Vietnam and then to be recaptured by the Viet Cong in the South. He is also credited with living through the first "no chute" bailout from a burning jet fighter in England in 1955.
At the time of his shoot-down, Colonel Day was one of the nation's most experienced jet fighter pilots, with 4,500 hours of single engine jet time, and more than 5,000 hours of flying time. He has flown all of the modern Air Force jet fighters including the F-80, F-84, F-84F, F-100, F-104, F-105, F-4E, A-4J Mongoose, A-7, F-106, FB-111, F-15, F-16, CF-5, CT-33, and CF-18.
He holds every significant combat award. Bud is the nation's most highly decorated officer since General Douglass MacArthur. He holds nearly seventy military decorations and awards of which more than fifty are for combat. Most notable are the Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with nine Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star for Valor with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart with three Clusters and the POW ribbon. He was presented Vietnam's highest medal by President Thieu, two Vietnamese Gallantry Crosses, and Vietnamese Wings. He wears twelve Campaign Battle Stars.
On March 14, 1997 (March 14th was Bud's Freedom Day from POW Camp) the new Survival School Building at Fairchild AFB, WA was named the Colonel George "Bud" Day Building in his honor. His escape in Viet Nam was the longest survival of any graduate of the Fairchild Survival School.
He is a member of the Medal of Honor Society, Legion of Valor, was the first President of NAM-POW's (the Vietnam POW organization), President of the MISTY SUPER-FAC Association, and a member of numerous military and fraternal organizations. Colonel Day was a member of the Code of Conduct Review Board established by the Department of Defense in 1976 to review POW conduct. Has taught World Politics, International Law and Political Geography at St. Louis University and Parks College of Aeronautical Technology. He taught Constitutional Law, Politics of the Middle East, Law and Society and Communism in Eastern Europe at Troy State University. Member of the Okaloosa/Walton Bar Association, Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, National Lawyers Association, and American Trial Lawyers. Speaks at Maxwell AFB, AL several times each year to the Squadron Officer School classes and the FBI Academy.
Bud is married to his childhood sweetheart Doris Merlene Sorensen of Sioux City, Iowa, and has four children. Steven Michael of Pensacola, Florida; Lt.Colonel George Everette, Jr. (Class of '85 Air Force Academy) F-16 pilot, stationed at the Pentagon; and twin daughters Sonja Smith of Shalimar, Florida and Sandra Mathers of Monroe, LA. He has four grandsons, Jacob, Joshua, Brian, Peter and six granddaughters, Noel Elizabeth, Victoria Leigh, Audrey Marie, Bethany Marie, Anna Marie and Amelia Lynn. He resides at Shalimar, Florida and has a law firm in Fort Walton Beach, Florida where he is a trial lawyer.
Past Florida State Republican Committeeman, and a past member of the Board of Directors of the Medal of Honor Society. He is past National Commander of the Legion of Valor. He was a delegate to Republican Conventions, Chairman of the Reagan Committee in Okaloosa County, Florida. In 1984, he was National Chairman of Veteran's for Reagan and campaigned extensively for and with the President. He campaigned nationally for President Bush in 1992, and Jeb Bush for Governor of Florida 1998, John McCain for President and Bill McCollum for Senate in 2000. Past Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, serves as a director of the Air Force Armament Museum. He is a past advisor to the Air Force Association, Washington, D.C. Recently appointed on the Panel for Tri-Care for Life.
Received the BUSINESS ASSOCIATE OF THE YEAR 1988 from the American Business Women's Association. He has published numerous articles on fighter performance, an article in the Saturday Evening Post, Air Force Magazine, and is the author of "RETURN WITH HONOR" his POW autobiography.
In February 2001 Day won a major victory for WWII-Korean retireds in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, when the court agreed that the U.S. had breached their contract to provide free lifetime medical care to retired veterans and their spouses. The court also found that Days clients were entitled to recover damages for the Medicare B premiums they have been forced to pay since passage of Tri Care. Day has moved for class action status for the multi million veteran group through the Class Act Group in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
[ Back to main page ]
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner 209.130.218.102
Brief History Of Military Healthcare....
No score for this post
December 25 2002, 11:11 AM
The Military Health Care Reclamation Group
"Fighting for What We've Earned!
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MILITARY HEALTH CARE BENEFITS IN THE U.S.
(30 August 2000)
By Colonel James Bond Johnson, US Army-Ret
Table of Contents
1. Congress Has Provided Health Care for Military Service Members From the Earliest Years of Our Nation's History.
2. In 1799, Congress Took Formal Steps to Regulate the Military Medical Establishment; Health Care for Retired Personnel and Dependents Always Was Properly and Legally Provided When They Were Authorized.
3. Congress Over the Years Statutorily Implemented and Reinforced Its Delegated Support for the Medical Establishment of the Military Services, and Which Provided Health Care both for Serving Members and Retirees.
4. In 1956, Congress Enacted a Military Dependents Medical Care Act Which Further Clarified "No Cost" Health Care for Retired Military Personnel and Their Families.
5. In 1959, Congress Appropriated Funds to Construct and Operate General Hospitals and Related Facilities, Diagnostic and Treatment Centers, Hospitals for the Chronically Ill and Impaired, and for Nursing Homes Designed for Military Retirees and Dependents.
6. In 1966, Congress Created the CHAMPUS Program to Mirror Care for Military Retirees and Dependents With FEHBP, as Provided to Civilian Employees, But at a Much Lower Cost to the Military Related Beneficiaries.
7. Acting In Total Disregard of the Will of Congress, the DOD's CHAMPUS Plan As Designed and Implemented Was Very Problematic When Compared to the FEHBP, Yet Was Provided At a Much Greater Cost to the Taxpayers.
8. In 1987, The DOD's CHAMPUS Plan Regulation Was Invalidated By the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
9. Congress' Consistent Intentions Re Military Retiree and Dependent Health Care Benefits Were Greatly Compromised Due to BRAC Base and Hospital Closures.
10. In 1997, The United States Supreme Court Upheld That the US Government Must Honor Its Contractual Commitments to Its Employees and Others.
11. CONCLUSION: Enactment by the 106th Congress of S2003/HR 3573 and the Warner Amendment Will Cure the Unintended Extant Lack of Health Care Parity Between Military Retirees and Federal Civilian Employees.
----------------------------------------------
1. Congress Has Provided Health Care for Military Service Members From the Earliest Years of Our Nation's History.
Since the earliest years of the United States our founding fathers showed a concern for those who served their country in its military forces, and for their families. The Army Medical Department and the Medical Corps trace their origins to July 27, 1775, when the Continental Congress established Army hospitals headed by a Director General and Chief Physician. During the War for Independence, due to a lack of permanent hospital facilities, Army battle wounded and sick often were cared for in churches of various denominations.
In 1777, Army hospitals existed in several locations in churches and barns, including at Yorktown, PA, Black River, NJ and Mendham, NJ. General George Washington often visited patients in these facilities and, in an effort to increase professionalism, urged the replacement of male nurses by women! In November of 1777 famed Dr. Benjamin Rush was assigned the task of opening a military hospital at Red Bank, NJ, to care for the wounded of the Delaware River forts. Military troops and on occasion their families were cared for in these treatment facilities.
2. In 1799, Congress Took Formal Steps to Regulate the Military Medical Establishment; Health Care for Retired Personnel and Dependents Always Was Properly and Legally Provided When They Were Authorized
On March 2, 1799, the Fifth Congress formally established a military medical department by enactment of an Act to Regulate the Medical Establishment (Session III, Chapter 27). By such statutory action Congress conferred full authority and charged the Surgeon General with superintendence and development of all military hospitals and other treatment facilities and directed that necessary orders, regulations and manuals be issued in support thereof.
The Surgeon General was SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED to determine who would be eligible for care in military hospitals and other treatment facilities.
In February 1855, it was authorized for the first time for Navy officers to be removed involuntarily from the active list and for other reasons, and in August 1861 the officers of all military services first were offered voluntary retirement after 40 years of service. In March of 1899, Navy enlisted personnel were authorized retirement after 30 years of active service.
Military retirement pay is not a pension, therefore a comparison cannot be made between it and a civilian pension. Military retirement is an earned entitlement for honorable service rendered, as well as retainer pay for future recall to active duty service. The military retirement system serves the objective of ensuring military readiness by providing retainer pay in the event of mobilization.
An 1881 Supreme Court Decision (US v. Tyler) established the basis for the claim that military retirement pay is reduced compensation for reduced services. The court took note of the fact that those on the retired list were in all aspects still performing "service," albeit retired service. Thus retired military servicemen and women represent a wealth of experience vital to military readiness. Retirees are reasonably available to relieve active duty forces to be reassigned to combat-related elements or service support units.
In 1884, Congress directed that the "medical officers of the Army and contract surgeons shall whenever possible attend the families of the officers and soldiers free of charge."
In 1900, a total of 3,029 former military personnel were receiving retired pay; most of these were wounded or injured in the Spanish-American War. There is no record that any policy or regulation barred care for injured or ill retired personnel and their dependents and several policy regulations issued by the various uniformed services specifically directed that retirees were to be provided equal health care with serving members. Several Presidents of the United States, including Roosevelt and Truman, also endorsed this policy over the years. This Congressional military health care edict remained essentially unchanged until 1956.
3. Congress Over the Years Statutorily Implemented and Reinforced Its Delegated Support for the Medical Establishment of the Military Services, and Which Provided Health Care both for Serving Members and Retirees.
There seems to be some disagreement persisting as to whether or not the promise of no cost ("free"), lifetime health care properly was made to military retirees. A survey of the written record proves conclusively that service members consistently were indeed promised no cost ("free"), lifetime health care in return for the hardships and comparatively low pay of a military career. The promise was made, in writing, well into this decade. Included below are samples of government documents (recruiting and retention literature from all service branches as well as rules and regulations) developed at the highest levels that promised retirement benefits:
The Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery was established by the Act of August 31, 1842 (Section 419, Revised Statutes). Thereafter, all regulations pertaining to medical matters came to be published in the Manual of the Medical Department of the Navy customarily referred to as the "Medman."
In responding to this delegated responsibility to operate heath care services, the military services issued necessary directives that included rules as to care for retirees and their dependents. As an example, the Navy Medical Manual, Para. 4132.2 stated "Retired enlisted personnel of the Navy and Marine Corps not admitted as beneficiaries of the Veteran's Administration SHALL in need of hospital care, be admitted to any naval hospital on the application of the individual."
Other service directives included the old Hospital Fund, Public Law 51, 4 Stat. 570, Sect. 4810, Revised Statutes, and the Army Organization Act of 1950. All conferred the authority to provide for retiree medical care.
Authority over the old Hospital Fund as well as over construction and operations of Hospitals was granted to the Secretary of the Navy by the Act of 1832, 4 Stat 570, Chapters 189 and 190. The 1832 Act was reaffirmed in 1862 (Section 1547, Revised Statutes) and again in 1913 (Section 4810, Revised Statutes).
Army Circular 310 dated October 6, 1945, DIRECTED "recruiting officers" at all levels of command to conduct "intensive recruiting efforts" ... and stipulated that all advertising material would originate within the Adjutant General's Office. It was signed by General George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff. These would include enlistment contract promises of "lifetime health care." There was NEVER any known directive which stated that recruiters were NOT to promise "lifetime health care" as an inducement for enlistment and to significantly supplement the low pay (and other hardships) offered to military enlistees
*Air Force Guide For Retirement, AFP 35-~1, 1 April 1962: "Eligible retired members will be furnished required medical and dental care and adjuncts thereto to the same extent as provided for active duty members in any medical facility of the Uniformed Services."
*Your Son's Future, Department of the Army, 1962: "He retires -- while still a young man -- equipped to start a second career. He has retirement pay, benefits and medical care."
*The Blue Jackets Manual, 1969, page 257: "What Navy Retirement means to you --- pay. Continued medical care for you and your dependents in government facilities." *The Blue Jacket Manual 19th Edition, 1973: "Free medical and dental care is provided to all active duty and retired personnel, and to dependent wives and children (with some exceptions)."
*Navy Guide for Retired Personnel and Their Families, page 51: Covered under the Uniformed Services Health Benefits Program (USHBP) are retired members, dependents of retired members and survivors of deceased active duty or retired members. This care is available anywhere in the world either in a uniformed services medical facility (meaning Army, Navy, Air Force and certain Public Health Service facilities) and under the part of the USHBP called CHAMPUS." (NAVPERS 15891D, November 1974.)
*Guide for Educators and Advisors of Student Marines, page 35: "Retired Marines are generally eligible to receive any type of health and dental care at those facilities provided for active duty personnel."
*Pre-Retirement Counseling Guide, Air Force Publication (AFP) 211-12, 1 April 1986: "One very important point, you never lose your eligibility for treatment in military hospitals and clinics."
*United States Coast Guard Career Information Guide, GPO 1991: "Retirement benefits mean more than pay too. You continue to receive free medical care and dental treatment for yourself plus medical care for dependents."
*Army Recruiting Brochure, "Army Benefits": "Superb Health Care. Health care is provided to you and your family members, while you are in the Army, and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of active federal service to earn your retirement." (RPI 909,
November 1991, USGPO, 1992, 643-711).
*RETIREMENT: Handbook for Military Families, 1 April 1996:
1) "And for the time being, the government still adheres to the promises it has made to retirees: They are eligible for free health care at military medical centers, although retirees may find it harder to use hospitals without paying to enroll in TRICARE, the military's new managed care plan."
2) "Almost as important as the retirement check is medical care. Military hospitals and clinics are open to retirees."
3) "Monthly retirement pay, medical care for life, and access to exchanges and commissaries are the major benefits of military retirement. *Figuring Your Future, Department of the Navy NRAF-26502: "As a Navy man, you ... receive free medical and dental care now and after retirement," *Navy Career Appraisal Team Representation Guide, Department of the Navy, NAVPERS 15897-A: "Just think when you do retire or go into the Fleet Reserve, you retain almost all of the benefits you enjoyed while on active duty, including hospitalization for you and your dependents for life." Below are some additional government documents that further prove that the promise was made:
*AFP 35-1-1 1962
*AFP 211-1-12 1967 ~972
*APP 211-12 1986
*AFP 3~4-3 1957
*Air Officers Guide, 1957
*AFP 160-73 1951
*AFP 39-19
*Department of the Army Field Manual 21-13
4. In 1956, Congress Enacted a Military Dependents Medical Care Act Which Further Clarified "No Cost" Health Care for Retired Military Personnel and Their Families.
The Korean conflict again strained the capabilities of the military health care system. On Dec. 7, 1956, Congress formally mandated eligibility for "no cost" hospital and other health care for this class and for all other military retirees and dependents by its enactment of Public Law 569, the Dependents' Medical Care Act (37 USC, Chapter 7). The US Supreme Court took note that "The medical benefits legislation, 10 USC 1071, et seq., was enacted as the Dependents' Medical Care Act of 1956. As such it was designed to revise and make uniform the existing law relating to medical services for military personnel." (emphasis added) Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 US 677 (1973) at F. N. 6.
The 1966 amendments to this act created what would be called CHAMPUS, beginning in 1967. The law authorized ambulatory and psychiatric care for active-duty family members, effective Oct. 1, 1966. Retirees, their family members, and certain surviving family members of deceased military sponsors were brought into the program on Jan. 1, 1967.
5. In 1959, Congress Appropriated Funds to Construct and Operate General Hospitals and Related Facilities, Diagnostic and Treatment Centers, Hospitals for the Chronically Ill and Impaired, and for Nursing Homes Designed for Military Retirees and Dependents.
On August 14, 1959, Congress went even further to insure availability of health benefits for all military retirees and their dependents by funding construction and operation of new general hospitals and related facilities, diagnostic and treatment centers, hospitals for the chronically ill and impaired, and for nursing homes for retirees and dependents, through the enactment of Public Law 86-158 -- all of which care was made available without any cost to the patients. This legislation expressly appropriated funds to provide medical care of various types and levels for military dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents' Medical Care Act of 1956.
6. In 1966, Congress Created the CHAMPUS Program to Mirror Care for Military Retirees and Dependents With FEHBP, as Provided to Civilian Employees, But at a Much Lower Cost to the Military Related Beneficiaries.
Effective October 1, 1966, Congress further enlarged health care options available to military retirees and dependents by enacting the Military Medical Benefits Act of 1966, known as "CHAMPUS." Congress mandated and authorized that the Department of Defense develop and supervise what has been described as a "Parity Plus" plan, in that the CHAMPUS was to mirror a specific existing FEHBP plan available to federal civilian employees, but offer it at a much lower cost to the military related beneficiaries.
Congress went to great pains to state its intentions in this regard: "The types of care in this (CHAMPUS) legislation for the various (military) beneficiaries are IDENTICAL to those authorized under the high option Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan that is available to Federal civilian employees (under the FEHBP)"; See Senate Report No. 1434, page 6. (1966), referenced at Title 10 US Code, Section 1086, Historical and Statutory Notes.
Congress also promised that "the benefits would be the same as the high-option (FEHBP) civilian program covering the larger number of federal employees as existed on July 1, 1966, with the provision that the benefits could change in the event there are other changes in the civilian program." See Senate Report No. 1434, p. 9 (1966). In this legislation Congress further provided "the DOD the flexibility to improve benefits in the future as health benefits expanded for other Government personnel and, at the same time, provides a floor on (CHAMPUS) benefits so that they could not be reduced in the future by arbitrary administrative directive." (emphasis added) See Congressional Report, 03/31/66 and 54 FR 20386, 5/11/89.
The CHAMPUS budget for Fiscal Year 1967 was $106 million. Records don't indicate how many claims were filed in FY 1967, but the total probably wasn't more than a few thousand. In FY 1996, the TRICARE/CHAMPUS budget was more than $3.5 billion, and more than 20 million claims were received. Today, nearly 5.5 million people are eligible for TRICARE benefits.
7. Acting In Total Disregard of the Will of Congress, the DOD's CHAMPUS Plan As Designed and Implemented Was Very Problematic When Compared to the FEHBP, Yet Was Provided At a Much Greater Cost to the Taxpayers.
Unfortunately, contrary to the carefully expressed will of Congress, the DOD developed an extremely anomalous and complicated CHAMPUS plan which in no way mirrored the mandated FEHBP plan and which was provided at much greater cost to the taxpayers than the Congressionally intended plan. Further, CHAMPUS was anomalous to every other federally funded health care plan in its administration. In virtually every year of operation CHAMPUS' capricious administrative operations elevated costs to far exceed its anticipated budgets and which compelled the DOD to annually have to request massive "bail out" supplements at the end of the fiscal years to fund the program's extremely wasteful and excessive costs when compared to its counterpart FEHBP plan!
This has resulted in the DOD in recent years greatly curtailing payments to contracted hospitals and providers of health care to the degree that the program is unacceptable to most providers and thus is in serious jeopardy of complete implosion. Increasingly, hospitals and health care providers have refused to treat military families under CHAMPUS coverage.
8. In 1987, The DOD's CHAMPUS Plan Regulation Was Invalidated By the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
"On May 15, 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (in the case of) Barnett v. Weinberger, 818 F. 2d 953 (DC Cir. 1987) in reversing a district court decision, held the CHAMPUS regulation INVALID... In reaching the foregoing conclusion, the Court relied heavily upon an analysis of the relevant legislative history." 54 FR 20387, 5/11/89. The response of the DOD was to write new regulations that were even more complicated and confounding and hence increasingly unacceptable to both providers and beneficiaries.
9. Congress' Consistent Intentions Re Military Retiree and Dependent Health Care Benefits Were Greatly Compromised Due to BRAC Base and Hospital Closures.
In enacting the CHAMPUS plan in 1966, Congress clearly intended that health care benefits for military retirees and dependents were to continue throughout life at a comparable level with federal civilian employees -- whose FEHBP health plans all included lifetime care. For military retirees and dependents, health care reasonably was anticipated by Congress at that time to be adequately provided after beneficiaries reached age 65 by reliance in part on the brand new Medicare Program of 1965 to supplement readily available military treatment opportunities. However, Congress at that time could not have and did not anticipate the abrupt end of the Cold War with the resulting wide spread base and military hospital closures of recent years.
The serious problems of obligatory uniformed services retiree health care is NOT a new issue before the Congress. In October and November, 1974, following extensive hearings before the House Armed Services Committee on the problems of CHAMPUS and Military Health Care (HASC No. 93-70, 93rd Congress) it was concluded that "... the government has a clear moral obligation to provide medical care to retired personnel and their dependents ... this Committee has found numerous examples of recruitment and retention literature which pledged ... Medicare care for the man and his family following retirement."
10. In 1996, The United States Supreme Court Upheld That the US Government Must Honor Its Contractual Commitments to Its Employees and Others.
The US Supreme Court upheld in United States v. Winstar Corp. et al., 518 US 839 (1996) that the government in acting as an employer must honor its contractual commitments to its employees and others. The Court stated that where "the documents found that the realities of the transaction favored reading those documents as contractual commitments, not mere statements of policy, see Restatement (Second) of Contracts 202(1) (1981) ("Words and other conduct are interpreted in the light of all the circumstances, and if the principal purpose of the parties is ascertainable it is given great weight"), and we see no reason to disagree."
11. CONCLUSION: Enactment by the 106th Congress of S2003/HR3573 and the Warner Amendment Will Cure the Unintended Extant Lack of Health Care Parity Between Military Retirees and Federal Civilian Employees.
In conclusion, it is clear that the INTENTION of Congress from its earliest years always has been to provide adequate health care benefits for serving military members, military retirees and their families on at least a par with federal civilian employees and their families. Congress has been consistent in enacting legislation in support of its intentions. However, recent base and military hospital closures has created a serious lack of health care options and military facility medical care is virtually nonexistent for most military retirees and their families.
For instance, at the time of enactment of the Military Medical Benefits Act of 1966 (CHAMPUS) and until recent years there was the excellent Long Beach Naval Hospital as well as the El Toro USMCAS Dispensary readily available to treat ill and injured military retirees and dependents residing within the 38th and 39th Congressional Districts. Today there is NO such military treatment facility available within or within a reasonable commuting distance of the 38th or 39th District! Further, the DOD's flawed design and administration of the CHAMPUS and TRICARE plans have NOT been an adequate answer even for those retirees and families eligible for such care. This is typical of most areas across the nation today!
Of a certainty, at least until June of 1956, the military services ("the employer"), directed and delegated by Congress on behalf of the US Government ("the company"), to enter into formal and legal enlistment contracts for various terms of military service ("employment") with many of its citizens ("the employees") and with FULL AUTHORITY PROMISING as a very meaningful and valuable part of that enlistment contract "lifetime health care" TO ALL CONTRACTEES who fulfilled their part of the enlistment contract, incurred a legal and moral obligation to fulfill such contracts by providing "lifetime health care" to the promised employees and their dependents.
Continued lack of addressing the drastic loss of retiree health care benefits for retired uniformed services retirees will produce grave consequences. This will involve pain, suffering, mental anguish, and financial hardship for those retired American military veterans who put their lives in jeopardy for the preservation of freedom throughout the world. The tragedy centers on a broken promise.
Passage of S 2003/HR3573 and the Warner Amendment will restore a meaningful health benefit option and cure that inequity for at least the covered class of retirees and their families, which includes nearly all of the members of our TROA chapter, and at least in part to fulfill "in honor, conscience and law" (see definition of "promise" in Black's Law Dictionary) the US government contracts entered into in good faith by all parties.
In order to honor the legal contractual promises made to career military personnel for their subsequent service to our nation over long periods of time and who endured hardships, family separations, and, for many, actual combat and war, and in so doing fulfilled in good faith their part of the contract, Congress is duty and honor bound to restore the level of health care formerly provided to military retirees and their families. This can fairly and best be achieved by the enactment of S2003/HR 3573 and the Warner Amendment by the 106th Congress!
Respectfully submitted,
James Bond Johnson
Colonel, US Army-Ret.
President
Los Alamitos Area Chapter
The Retired Officers Association
Post Office Box 665
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
Phone: (562) 426-3622
Fax: (562) 427-3931
E-mail: JBONJO@aol.com
Colonel James Bond Johnson is serving a 7th term as president of the Long Beach and Los Alamitos area chapters of The Retired Officers Association. He is a veteran of active duty during three wars and with a total of 33 years active and reserve military service. For 40 years he has been a California board certified and state licensed clinical and consulting psychologist in independent family and industrial practice. In February, 1967, he became the first CHAMPUS authorized psychologist provider in California and has made more than 1,000 Navy family home visits in consultation with chaplains and other military health care providers. Also, as a CHAMPUS beneficiary, in 1994 he was the author of a book discussing the difficulties of living with CHAMPUS regulations.
-- ##### --
[Site Meter]
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Dick G (Login Dick Gaines) Forum Owner 24.99.13.138
Last Stop?
No score for this post
June 3 2003, 7:37 AM
Justices refuse to hear veterans' benefits case Dick Gaines
Jun 03, 2003 04:02 PDT
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Justices refuse to hear veterans' benefits case
By Frank J. Murray
Published June 3, 2003
The Supreme Court ended a legal battle by battalions of aging World War
II and Korea retirees yesterday, leaving them without the lifetime free
medical care recruiters promised them when they signed up.
Without comment on the merits, justices refused to consider overturning
last year's decision against the veterans by the full Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals, which was sympathetic and advised the veterans to seek
help in Congress.
The military promised recruits who entered the service from 1941 through
1956 that those who served for 20 years would be eligible for free
medical care in military hospitals the rest of their lives. But Congress
never approved such benefits, and the Pentagon stopped providing the
care in 1995.
Government attorneys told the high court that simply reimbursing past
medical expenses for 1.5 million retirees would cost $15 billion. That
would not include the cost of future care for the retirees.
Thousands of the veterans who were promised medical care die each week.
The lead plaintiff in the case died March 30 at age 76.
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. William O. Schism had filed the Supreme Court
appeal and was lead petitioner in the case, Schism v. the United States.
Yesterday, the court granted the motion by his only child, Mary Jane
Short, to substitute her name, then denied the plea to hear the dispute.
"It's a sad day for World War II-Korea era warriors who gave their all
but have been rejected by their government," said George E. Day of Fort
Walton Beach, Fla., attorney for the Schisms, retired Lt. Col. Robert
Reinlie, and an unnamed generation of veterans in similar situations.
"After 20 years of care in military hospitals, my wife and I were kicked
out and forced to rely on Medicare," Col. Reinlie, a veteran of the Army
and Air Force, said yesterday. "This is not what I was promised when I
pledged to serve my country for 20 years. I'm astonished that at the age
of 82 years I must continue to fight for the medical care I earned."
Mr. Day — an Air Force retiree, Medal of Honor recipient and former
fighter pilot who was imprisoned in Vietnam — said yesterday that he
will turn to getting Congress to pay those bills. His efforts included
cartoon billboards in the Washington area and a rally at the Capitol.
"There already is a bill pending in the House and a bill in the Senate.
I will be putting my focus on getting those passed into law," Mr. Day
said from Salt Lake City in an interview in which the ever-optimistic
veteran predicted passage against all odds.
"What that will accomplish will basically be to make health care free.
What I would be looking for initially would be to first fix the matter
of having to pay for free care, and secondly see if I can get some
retroactive compensation out of Congress for these people who already
have given so much," Mr. Day said.
The Federal Circuit Court in its Nov. 8 ruling last year expressed
sympathy for the veterans' plight but said the judges "can do no more
than hope Congress will make good on the promises made in good faith."
Congress did take steps last year to absorb some health costs for older
veterans but stopped short of the demands in Schism v. the United
States.
The lawsuit was based on the military's promise to young recruits that
medical benefits would be paid for those who stayed in the service for
20 years. Superiors authorized the promises, apparently unaware they
were not backed by the legislation required to spend money.
Free health benefits were provided until the Pentagon halted coverage in
1995 for those older than 65 and eligible for Medicare, whose coverage
is less complete than what the veterans were promised. Some bought
supplemental insurance policies. Others paid out of their pockets.
Mr. Day pursued the lawsuit demanding that the military make good.
"It is not enough to hold parades or tie yellow ribbons," said a legal
brief filed by the Military Officers Association of America in support
of the appeal. "We must honor their commitment and sacrifice by assuring
that the government honors its commitments to them."
In his Supreme Court brief, Mr. Day cited the war in Iraq as an example
of the sacrifices made by veterans.
Troops in Iraq "are going for five days with no sleep, getting shot at,
having to shoot at people.
"It gives people a realistic understanding of why you make those kinds
of promises to make up for the low pay," he said.
In other actions yesterday, the high court:
c
Unanimously vacated a $1.6 million award that Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corp. won from Dastar Corp. — which Fox accused of using its TV
production of the "Crusade in Europe" series, 26 installments based on
Army Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower's World War II memoirs. The opinion
written by Justice Antonin Scalia said federal law doesn't require
credit in Dastar's "Campaigns in Europe" for edited material no longer
under copyright from someone else's production. Justice Stephen G.
Breyer recused himself.
c
Voted 7-2 that usury lawsuits against national banks may only be brought
in federal courts. That was a victory for Beneficial National Bank,
which said claims by 26 Alabama consumers who said interest rates for
income-tax-refund loans from Beneficial through H&R Block exceeded legal
limits.
•
Turned away a plea from Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines, the
nation's third- and fourth-largest passenger carriers, to bar passengers
from joining together in an antitrust case seeking $1.5 billion for
overcharging on some routes. The airlines say triple damages in such
cases could cost them $4.4 billion.
