The
Military Retiree Medical Care Broken Promise Issue
TALKING
POINTS
The American people and the United States Congress must never forget that which is owed to its military retirees, military veterans, active duty military, and their eligible dependents.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
The Preamble
The military retiree medical
care promise
The breaking of the military
retiree medical care promise
Congressional action
The common thread for
no-support of HR2966/HR3573
The making of the medical care
promise
The medical care after
retirement promise was honored for a time
My involvement in making the
medical care promise
Military personnel have and
obligation to believe what they are told
Military Health Care: The
Issue of "Promised" Benefits, CRS 98-1006 F
My reaction to CRS 98-1006 F
What does CRS 98-1006 F
really mean?
The lawsuit filed by Attorney
George E. Day
Lawsuit summary
Military retiree -vs- non
military retiree, the DIFFERENCE
Military retiree -vs- non
military retiree, the MISUNDERSTANDING
TRICARE Senior Prime
TRICARE Senior Prime is
available at:
In order to enroll in TRICARE
Senior Prime I had to agree that:
Other considerations:
The should I drop my MEDICARE
Supplement Insurance Dilemma?
A letter from the Department
of Defense
Medicare (Part B) and TRICARE
Senior Prime
Medicare/TRICARE Senior Prime
I had to lose one to get the other
The 'BIG' question!
APPENDIX - A
List of evidence that the
medical care promise was made
The Preamble:
I am a retired American military fighting man. I served in the Armed Forces which guarded our country and our way of life. I was prepared to give my life in my country's defense. I will never forget that I was an American military fighting man, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will continue to trust in my God and in the United States of America, and I will continue the fight (verbally and in writing) to regain the medical care promised to the retired American military veterans for as long as I live.
The military retiree medical care promise:
While on active duty in the United States Armed Forces, from 1951 to 1971, personnel in positions of authority acting as agents of the United States Government promised me and millions of people like me that if we served for 20 years in the military and retired we would receive no cost medical care for ourselves and eligible dependents at military treatment facilities for as long as we lived. This medical care promise has been broken.
The breaking of the military retiree medical care promise:
In the process of down sizing the United States Military, a large number of military bases and military treatment facilities have been closed. This has created a situation where inadequate space is available to accommodate the military retiree community. As a result, the medical care that was promised to the military retiree is being denied by the United States Government.
Congressional action:
The U.S. Congress is well aware of this military retiree medical care broken promise issue and some legislative action is in progress to correct the problem, but is moving too slow to help the oldest of the military retirees who need help now.
Three very important bills have been introduced in the Congress HR2966, HR3573, and S2003. All three bills have the same title, Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act. HR2966 came about as a result of real grass roots efforts. It came about as a result of little people, like me, getting involved by the thousands and doing what had to be done to get a bill introduced in the House. S2003 came about as a result of other military retirees working with one-on-one meetings down home where various Senators live.
HR2966 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act", was introduced in the House of Representatives on 28 Sep 1999 by Congressman RONNIE SHOWS and has been cosponsored by Congressman CHARLIE NORWOOD, and many other Congresspersons. Click here for a list of cosponsors.
S2003 - The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act", was introduced in the Senate on 24 Jan 2000 by Senator Tim Johnson and has been cosponsored by Senator Paul Coverdell, Senator John McCain, and many other Senators. Click here for a list of cosponsors.
These bills, if passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate, will be a major step in the process of restoring the medical care that was promised to the military retirees that served 20 or more years in the military and retired.
Military retirees are being encouraged to contact their Congresspersons and Senators asking them to cosponsor HR2966, HR3573, and S 2003.
The common thread for non-support of HR2966/HR3573/S2003:
Congress is debating whither or not they should cosponsor and support HR2966/HR3573/S2003. The common thread for non-support is the COST factor. Where will the money come from they ask?
The answer is obvious! The money will come from the same place that the money comes from to support any other national disaster.
The consequences of the military retiree medical care broken promise disaster will be recorded in history as one of the greatest disasters of all time, and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. The military is experiencing great difficulties in recruiting and retaining military personnel. The booming economy and record low unemployment is cited as the main reasons for the military recruiting and retention problems, however the failure to recognize the military retiree medical care broken promise issue as a factor is an indication of flawed thinking.
The Center for Strategic and International studies, a Washington think tank, says its two years study, based on responses from thousands of military men and women, finds the U.S. Military is entering a critical phase, yet the Congress is debating whither or not they should fix the military retiree medical care broken promise problem and where the money will come from.
When a hurricane blows away one of our great cities do we let it lay in ruin? When an earthquake breaks portions of the earth and everything on it, almost anywhere in the world, do we let it lay in ruin? When one of our great rivers overflows its banks is it just ignored? The answer is NO. Should the United States Government let the military retiree community lay in ruin because of a broken medical care promise? The answer is NO.
Throughout my life I have seen the Presidents of the United States declare certain events as disasters. When ever this is done the repair process start immediately. No tests are run to determine how much it will cost. When an earthquake hits a city nobody checks the law to see if somebody did something wrong before the repairs are started.
In any disaster the damage is repaired immediately and we find the money later. What is different about the military retiree medical care broken promise disaster? Why should it be treated any different?
The money to fix the military retiree medical care broken promise disaster must come from the same place as the money to fix any other national disaster.
The making of the medical care promise:
In November of 1951, because of the military draft, I had to make a choice. I could volunteer to join or be drafted into the military. At that time I did talk to a military recruiter and I volunteered to join the military. I was told by the military recruiter that medical care would be provided for me and my wife while I was on active duty, and medical care after retirement was mentioned. I was very interested in the immediate medical care since I could not afford insurance based on what I would be paid. In November of 1951 I was not concerned about medical care after retirement because I had no interest in a military career, but because of later promises I changed my mind.
Currently, much is being said concerning the recruiters role in the making of the medical care promise. Based on my experience, too much emphasis is placed on the recruiters promise and this emphasis is creating a grave misunderstanding in the Congress. The Congress must understand that prior to joining the military I talked to a recruiter for about 30 minutes to fill out forms, and again when he gave me a bus ticket. I never talked to a recruiter again.
Think about this... it is not very likely that I would have remembered the medical care after retirement promise for 20 years if I had only heard the promise made once.
My decision to stay in the military, and retire, was not based a recruiters promise. My decision was based on the promises made during my first four years in the military from 1951 to 1955. During this period the United States Air Force was engaged in an all-out campaign to get military personnel to reenlist. The campaign was very intense and very well organized. The medical care after retirement promise was made continuously. The promise was made to me by my Supervisors (on an almost daily basis), my 1st Sergeant (on a weekly basis), my Commanding Officer (at monthly briefings - commanders call), and Reenlistment Counselors (several times during the last 3 to 4 months of my first enlistment). The medical care after retirement promise was made openly, officially, and continuously to encourage me and other trained and experienced military personnel to remain in the military. The making of the medical care after retirement promise did not stop after my first enlistment. The promise was made to me throughout my 20 years in the Air Force.
The promise was reiterated, in writing at Keesler AFB in Nov 1971, during my retirement briefing.
RETIREMENT BRIEFING, ATC Keesler, 1-3567, in effect on 30 Nov 1971.
Paragraph 9. Medical Care:
a. Retired personnel are entitled to medical and dental care at Uniformed Services facilities to the same extent as active duty members with the exception that airmen are not charged subsistence.
b. Eligible dependents of retired personnel are also eligible for medical treatment at Uniformed Services facilities.
Another RETIREMENT BRIEFING guide ATCR 211-2, in effect on 12 Dec 1967.
Paragraph 8. Medical Care:
a. As a retired member, you are entitled to medical and dental care, subject to space and mission requirements, to the same extent as active duty members. While hospitalized, officers and warrant officers are charged subsistence at the rate of $________ per day. Airmen are not charged subsistence.
b. Subject to mission requirements, your eligible dependents are authorized medical treatment in uniformed services hospitals (Air Force, Army, Navy, Public Health Service). They need only present their ID card (DD Form 1173). Dental care is not authorized for dependents except in an emergency when it is part of surgical treatment. Dependents are charged subsistence of $1.75 per day while hospitalized. You and your eligible dependents are authorized treatment in a civilian hospital facility at the expense of the government. See DOD FS-38.
The medical care after retirement promise was honored for a time:
The military retiree medical care promise was honored, in my case, for 24 years (1971-1995). The promise was honored until I reached age 65. In December of 1995, when I turned 65, TRICARE Prime came to Keesler AFB, where I was being treated as a military retiree. At that time military retirees, that were 65 and over, were not eligible to enroll in TRICARE Prime. As a result I had no choice except to leave the military medical care system, and use Medicare.
To use Medicare I had to pay $45.00 per month for Medicare Part B. Since Medicare only pays 80% of the medical expenses it was necessary for me to get a Medicare Supplement at about $95.00 per month, which did not cover prescription drugs. When my wife reached 65 (about 18 months later) she also had to leave the military medical care system and go on Medicare.
The total cost for medical care for my wife and I was about $280.00 per month or $3,360.00 per year.
At first glance you might say, "what's the big problem, this happens to everybody that reaches age 65".
The big problem is... the medical care for my wife and I was guaranteed by the Air Force to be at no cost in military treatment facilities for the rest of our lives.
My wife and I have been through the humiliation of being kicked out of the military treatment facilities (MTF) when we reached age 65. We have been through the physical pain of making the transition from the MTF to the civilian treatment facilities, and having to undergo all of the hideous tests necessary to have our medical condition and records reestablished in the civilian community (under Medicare). After being on Medicare for 3 years, we are now enrolled in the Tricare Senior Prime (test program) at Keesler AFB and we are going through the same process in reverse. It's a real bummer.
This was not suppose to happen. My wife and I are being cheated out of what I was promised. Millions just like my wife and I are also being cheated out of what they were promised. THIS IS WRONG. And, this is why I'm committed to what I'm doing.
My involvement in making the medical care promise:
From 1951 to 1971, encouraging subordinates to reenlist was a duty and an obligation of all military personnel in leadership positions. Reenlistment was absolutely necessary to maintain a strong trained military force at a very crucial time in our history. The assessment of my leadership ability and what was recorded on my proficiency report was based partially on my ability to retain personal under my supervision. I was required to and did brief, in an official capacity as a supervisor and a USAF Basic Training Instructor, hundreds of subordinates concerning the medical care after retirement promise. As a Basic Training Instructor, I taught the provisions of the medical care after retirement promise from an official USAF lesson plan.
Military personnel have and obligation to believe what they are told:
It must be understood that military personnel have an obligation to believe what they are told, it's the military law. Military personnel have no choice in reference to believing or not believing what they are told when it comes from an official source. The military person is trained, from day one, to BELIEVE what they are being told. They are trained to trust their leaders. Military personnel are told when and where they must go (no matter what the hardship), do what they are told to do (with no choice in the matter), and obey orders (without question).
What do you think would happen to a military person that questions the commanding officer at a military briefing in reference to whither or not what is being said is true? I can tell you that this person would have a very short military career. When a military person in a leadership position tells subordinates that if they spend 20 or more years in the military and retire they will get no cost medical care for life, they believe it. Military people must trust their leaders, it's the military law.
If our military reaches a point where its personnel are NOT required to believe what they are being told or they can SELECTIVELY believe what they are being told then we will have a big problem trying to maintaining order and discipline.
Military Health
Care:
The Issue of "Promised" Benefits, CRS 98-1006 F:
The following was extracted from the summary CRS 98-1006 F.
"Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, and those representing their interests, allege that they were promised "free health care for life at military facilities" as part of their "contractual agreement" when they entered the armed forces. Efforts to locate authoritative documentation of such promises have not been successful."
To the casual reader the above paragraph would seem to indicate that the "free health care for life at military facilities" promise for military retirees was not actually made, and that the military retirees simply "allege" that the promise was made.
There are five
versions of CRS 98-1006 F. I would strongly suggest that
interested parties read all of these reports in their entirety.
Click here to view the December 21, 1998 version
of CRS 98-1006 F (.pdf file)
Click here to view the January 16, 2001 version of CRS 98-1006 F (.pdf file)
Click here to view the November 21, 2002 version of CRS 98-1006 F (.pdf file)
Click here to view the August 12, 2003 version of CRS 98-1006 F (.pdf file)
Click here to view the January 19, 2006 version of CRS 98-1006F (.pdf file)
My reaction to CRS 98-1006 F:
The investigation, that produced the CRS 98-1006 F Report for Congress, apparently only did a review of the legislative history of the statutory language related to military health care for retirees and dependents. This report gives very little weight to the fact that thousands of official briefings were given to military personnel at all levels of command to substantiate the fact that the medical care after retirement promise was real. It must be remembered that the military men and women have an obligation to believe what they are being told. By military law they have no choice. I did not see any indication in the CRS report that military retirees were interviewed concerning the medical care after retirement promise.
If this CRS Report is taken at face value it will leave the reader with the impression that the medical care after retirement promise was never made. Many members of the Congress take CRS 98-1006 F as the whole and absolute truth in reference to the military retiree medical care broken promise issue. This is extremely unfair to the military retiree. It's like having a trial where only one side gets to present its case. The military retirees must be given an equal opportunity to tell their side of this medical care broken promise issue, thus the reason for this TALKING POINTS document.
What does CRS 98-1006 F really mean?
Does CRS 98-1006 F mean that no medical care after retirement was promised to military retirees? There is no doubt that the medical care after retirement promise was made. Approximately 1.8 million military retirees will attest to the fact that the promise was made.
From WWII until now, who was it that didn't know that the medical care after retirement promise was being made? Did Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton know that the promise was being made? Did the congresses of those eras know that medical care promise was being made? Did the Joint Chiefs of Staff know? What about the top ranking generals of the Armed Forces, did they know? If not then why?
The medical care promise, as it has played out, was a gimmick designed to keep the trained military in the military. It was also one of the greatest promotional stratagem of all time. The medical care gimmick was like a law of physics... an object set in motion shall continue in motion until acted upon by an opposing force. The medical care after retirement promise was self perpetuating. No effort was ever made to stop what the government now claims to be an illegal promise. The making of the medical care after retirement promise accomplished its goal, it kept the trained military personnel in the military.
My question is... if it was not legal to make the medical care after retirement promise then why did our top elected officials and heads of the military establishment allow such a gimmick to continue? Why wasn't this gimmick stopped years ago? Why was it allowed to continue to be a part of the military retirees retirement package for so many years? Surely our top leadership would not engage in a gimmick that could easily be considered a conspiracy to defraud.
The lawsuit filed by Attorney George E. Day:
On July 16, 1996 a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in Pensacola, Florida, by Attorney George E. Day on behalf of Military Retiree Health Care. The suit alleges breach of contract with military retirees over the age of 65 years by the failure of the U.S. to provide the military medical care it had promised. In 1956, our government, broke with a more than Century-old historic and codified tradition of full health care for retirees and their dependents (PL 569 Section 301), by changing "Hospital space SHALL be made available" to "MAY be made available".
Lawsuit summary:
There is Bad News & There is Good News, September 8, 1998, The bad news is that the Judge [Roger Vinson] approved the "Motion for Summary Judgment" submitted by the Attorney General. He further stated "I must conclude that the plaintiffs certainly have a strong equitable argument that the government should abide by its promises. Regrettably, the law does not permit me to order the United States to do so. Under the Constitutional separation of powers, relief for the plaintiffs must come from Congress and not from the Judiciary".
Military Retiree -vs- Military Veteran,
the DIFFERENCE:
A "military veteran" is a person who served in the
active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or
released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.
See United
States Code, TITLE 38 - VETERANS'
BENEFITS, PART I, CHAPTER
1, Sec. 101, Definitions, paragraph (2) at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/38/101.html
A "military retiree" is any former member of the uniformed services who is entitled, under statute, to retired, retirement, or retainer pay. Examples include, but are not necessarily limited to, spending 20 or more years in the military or permanent retirement by reasons of physical disability.
All military retirees are military veterans but not all military veterans are military retirees.
Military Retiree -vs- Military
Veteran,
the MISUNDERSTANDING:
It appears that some congressional leaders, their staff members, the news media, and the American people don't realize that there is a difference between a veteran that spends 91 days in the military and is discharged and a veteran that spends 20 to 30 years in the military and retires.
They don't seem to understand that medical care promises were made to both groups but they are different.
Some folks get confused about what I'm trying to accomplish here since I make a distinction between the military retirees and the military veterans. I make this distinction to avoid the confusion that results when calculation are made concerning how much it will cost to finance the military retiree health care that was promised.
I'm told that in this country the veterans community numbers about 26.5 million. The military retirees (a subset of the veterans community) number about 1.8 million. Sometimes the military retirees get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes the wrong number is used when making calculations.
TRICARE Senior Prime (TSP):
My wife and I enrolled in the TSP demonstration at Keesler AFB on 1 Feb 99. This demonstration (test) is scheduled to last until 31 December 2001.
TRICARE Senior Prime is a managed care demonstration program designed to serve the medical needs of military retirees, dependents, and survivors who are 65 and over. My wife and I are eligible for TRICARE Senior prime since we:
TRICARE Senior Prime is available at:
NOTE: TRICARE Senior Prime is not available at all military treatment facilities. It is only available at 6 test sites (9 military bases) For the purposes of this demonstration, San Antonio, Fort Sill and Sheppard will be considered as one test site.
In order to enroll in TRICARE Senior Prime we had to agree that:
Other considerations:
| TRICARE Senior Prime helps a very small percentage of the military retirees that need help. Most people that retired from the military, prior to BRAC that closed large numbers of military bases, retired near a military base that had a military treatment facility. They put down their roots near a military base because they believed the base would provide the medical care that was promised. |
The should I drop my MEDICARE Supplement Insurance Dilemma?
Tricare Senior Prime is currently a demonstration (test) scheduled to last until 31 December 2001 at Keesler AFB. We have no assurance that it will be extended beyond that date. The situation in which we find ourselves is best described as a dilemma. In December of 1995, at 65, I was not eligible to enroll in TRICARE Prime. I had to leave Keesler AFB and go on Medicare. Since Medicare only pays 80% it was necessary to get Medicare Supplement Insurance.
When TRICARE Senior Prime came to Keesler, if I and the other eligible military retirees within the catchment area had not enrolled then it was doomed to fail. In keeping with the which comes first the chicken or the egg principle.... the Keesler AFB Hospital had to have enrollees to justify additional staff to take care of the additional patient load. No patients, no additional staff. No additional staff, no capability. We ENROLLED. Since we are enrolled in TRICARE Senior Prime we can not use our Medicare Supplement, and we do not need a Medicare Supplement.
Now the big question is... should we drop our Medicare Supplement Insurance? We don't need it if TRICARE Senior Prime becomes permanent. Other questions that come to mind... will TRICARE Senior Prime becomes permanent? If it doesn't and we must return to Medicare then will we be able (at an older age) to get a Medicare Supplement at a reasonable cost. Will Keesler AFB be the next victim of BRAC and get closed down?
The following was extracted from the HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION booklet "Medicare & You" 1999, page 26.:
QUESTION: What happens to my Supplement Insurance Policy (Medigap) if I join a Medicare health plan, drop my Supplemental Insurance Policy, and then later disenroll from the health plan?
ANSWER: You can return to your Medigap policy if you dropped it to enroll in a Medicare health plan or a Medicare SELECT policy. However: (1) this must be the first time that you enrolled in a health plan or a SELECT policy; (2) you must leave the health plan or SELECT policy within one year after joining; and (3) after leaving your health plan or SELECT policy, you must choose a Medigap policy within 63 days. If you meet these requirements, you can return to your original Medigap policy, if it is still offered, or policies A, B, C, or F (see pages 29, 30 and 32). Call your State Health Insurance Advisory Program for information.
The following was extracted from the 1998 GUIDE To Health Insurance for People with Medicare, page 23, under "Managed Care Plans an Medigap:, bottom of 4th paragraph:
In returning to fee-for-service, the Medigap policy of your choice may not be available to you if you have health problems.
| The big question is/was... should I trust the DoD and the US Congress, again, and drop my Medicare Supplement Insurance? |
NOTE: Acting on the information I received in a letter from the Department Of Defense, Health Services Region IV, Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi 39534-2428, dated 1 June 1999, I have dropped my Medicare Supplement Insurance. That letter follows.
DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE
HEALTH SERVICES REGION IV
KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE, MISSISSIPPI 39534-2428
1 June 1999
KEESLER TRICARE SENIOR HEALTH PLAN
Dear Keesler TRICARE Senior Enrollee
Over the past several months, many of our Keesler TRICARE Senior enrollees, have asked questions regarding their Medicare Supplement insurance coverage, often referred to as Medigap. Specifically, enrollees have inquired if they could drop their current Medigap policy if they were enrolled in the TRICARE Senior Prime program? Our response has been that this is a personal decision, but we have recommended enrollees consider keeping their Medigap plan until the determination was made that TRICARE Senior Prime transition from a demonstration to a permanent program. Our guidance was based on the fact that if the demonstration program was terminated, one might have a difficult time returning to the previous Medigap policy at the same level of premium.
We have received new guidance from the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), the Department of Defense/Health Affairs and the State of Mississippi Insurance Department. A federal requirement was recently enacted requiring guaranteed issue of Medigap supplements plans A, B, C or F to Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) members if the HMO terminates its contract with Medicare. If the member carried these plans prior to enrolling in an HMO and terminated their Medigap policy upon joining the HMO, the insurance carrier must (if requested by the member within 63 days of HMO plan termination) reinstate the member to their previous Medigap policy. The issuer may adjust rates for non-health status factors, such as age or geographic locations, if these adjustments are applied on a nondiscriminatory basis. If a member has been enrolled in a Medicare HMO less than 12 months, chose to disenroll, and was never previously enrolled in any other Medicare HMO, the individual may request, within 63 days of disenrollment, reinstatement of their previous Medigap policy, or A, B, C, or F, if the issuer still sells the same policy in the State. The insurance carrier cannot discriminate because of the individuals health status, prior history of claims experience, or receipt of healthcare or medical conditions. They also cannot impose any exclusions for a pre-existing condition.
How does this impact the TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration? Simply put, an enrollee in the Keesler TRICARE Senior Health Plan has the option to drop their Medigap policy A, B, C, or F and be guaranteed that the same coverage will be available to them if the Demonstration Program is terminated. Additionally, if the TRICARE Senior member disenrolls from the program in the first 12 months for any reason and was never enrolled in another Medicare HMO, they may return to their previous policy or Medigap A, B, C, or F. In either case, Medigap issuers/carriers may not:
Deny or condition the sale of the policy
Discriminate in the pricing of the policy because of health status, claims history, or frequent medical visits/problems
Impose an exclusion for pre-existing conditions
Given this information, you may or may not decide to terminate your current Medigap policy. This of course, remains a personal decision. The Keesler TRICARE Senior Health Plan simply wants to ensure that you have the most current and accurate information before making this important decision.
For more information regarding these new requirements, we recommend that you contact your Medicare Supplement Insurance representative. If you have any questions regarding Keesler TRICARE Senior Health Plan policies, benefits and services, please stop by or call the TRICARE Senior Information Center, located in Room BF408, Keesler Medical Center, 228-385-6551. The TRICARE Senior Information Center's hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. until 5:00p.m., Monday through Friday. Please be advised that, at this time, there is no designated line available for the hearing impaired.
Sincerely,
[Name], Col, USAF, MSC, FACHE, PAHM
President and Chief Operating Officer
Keesler TRICARE Senior Health Plan
[Name] - withheld for privacy - will be provided on request.
Medicare (Part B) and TRICARE Senior Prime:
One of the many tragedies resulting from the retiree medical care broken promise issue involves Medicare Part B.
Many of the older military retirees retired before 30 July 1965 before Medicare started. Many other military retirees turned 65 years before they became aware that they would ever need Medicare. Thousands of military retirees thought that they would never need Medicare, Part A or B. They believed the military promise of lifetime medical care after retirement. As a result thousands of military retirees did not choose to enroll in Medicare Part B.
Now that they have been kicked out of the military treatment facilities, as a result of reaching age 65, they have no choice except to go on Medicare. Since they did not enroll in Medicare Part B when they turned 65, now they must pay a penalty to enroll. Since enrollment in Medicare Part B is a prerequisite to enroll in TRICARE Senior prime then many military retirees are being penalized.
They are penalized in either case. Since they can not be seen at a military treatment facility they must use Medicare and pay a penalty for Part B. Or, if they get Medicare Part B by paying the penalty they can then join TRICARE Senior Prime. All of this is happening to our most senior military retirees simply because they believed (as they were suppose to) a medical care promise made by the United States government via the military.
Medicare/TRICARE Senior Prime I had to lose one to get the other:
In my way of thinking, I earned lifetime medical care in a military treatment facility as a result of spending 20 years in the military and retiring. On the other hand I paid for Medicare through payroll deductions with the loins share being paid from 1971 (after I retired from the USAF) to 1994 (when I retired on Medicare).
In order for me to get the medical care that I was promised, as a result of spending 20 years in the military, I must give-up my entitlement to the fee-for-service Medicare option.
A retired military ID card that was issued to me on 9 Nov 1984 indicated under the MEDICAL section "NO CIV MED CARE AUTHORIZED AFTER 13 Dec 1995". At the time this ID card was issued, this meant that I could not receive medical care under CHAMPUS after I reached age 65. It did not mean that I could not get medical care at a military treatment facility (which I earned) and at the same time use Medicare (which I earned).
It was always said, during the time that I had to use Medicare (1995-1998), that I could be seen at a military treatment facility on a space available basis. The fact is I could not get care on a space available basis. There never was any space available (I could not get an appointment). When I called the TRICARE appointment desk the first question was always "are you enrolled in TRICARE?". If the answer was no then no appointment was available. Since I am now enrolled in TRICARE Senior Prime I have no problem getting an appointment (space is now available).
In reference to Medicare and
CHAMPUS,
the following research data was provide by Mark Olanoff (TREA):
PL 89-614, Military Medical
Benefits Amendments, 1966 (which includes the creation of
CHAMPUS).
On Page 3095 of the Legislative History, under the section of
Retirees and Their Dependents the following is quoted:
"Social Security Medicare relationship to new civilian
program. Under the bill, as amended, the civilian care benefits
of this legislation would no longer apply to military retirees
who became eligible for Social Security Medicare upon reaching
age 65. The committee position, BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, was adopted for the following reasons:
(a) The benefits of the legislation should be considered a
transitional civilian program for retirees, who now enter the
retired rolls at about age 44, until they become eligible for
Social Security Medicare at age 65.
(b) Even under the Senate committee version military retirees
would continue to have two medical programs upon reaching age
65--the use of the military medical facilities on a
space-available basis and the Social Security Medicare program.
Under the circumstances, it appears that the two remaining
medical sources would provide a FAIR program of assistance."
The 'BIG' question!
In the final analysis the american people should answer these questions:
1. Should the United States
Government keep the promises
which have been made to its Armed Forces?
2. Should America's military retirees get the
medical care they were promised after retirement?
APPENDIX - A:
A partial list of evidence that the medical care promise was made.
The following list of documents, in blue, was provided by Morrie B.
This web page provided by: The Retired Military Advocate........E-Mail the sponsor.