February 2, 2005  

Van Hollen Bill Would Make Good on Promised Health Care for Military Veterans 

 (Washington, D.C.) -- United States Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced a revised version of the "Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act" (HR 602) today along with Representatives Chet Edwards (D-TX), Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA). 

This bipartisan bill addresses recent developments and offers more meaningful remedies to the "broken promise" of health care for military retirees.   "It is ironic that American soldiers are fighting - and dying - for freedom in Iraq while American veterans and military retirees have to fight for health care to which they are rightfully entitled," said Van Hollen.  "Military retirees are understandably outraged by comments made by Dr. David Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, that demonstrate a callous disregard for their past service and sacrifice. 

While discussing federal dollars obligated to health care for our veterans and military retirees, Dr. Chu recently was quoted as saying, 'the amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. 

They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself.'  The implications of Dr. Chu's words are undeniable - that keeping the promises our country made to our military veterans and retirees simply is not a priority." Said Van Hollen, "Military retirees and their families, who have been misled by empty promises in the past, see the root of the dilemma in Dr. Chu's words:  that they have served their purpose to America and are no longer needed, that they - who served a career in uniform to protect our freedoms - are now looked upon as a burden on society, that they have been used up and thrown away like an old worn out paper bag. 

That is why Senators and Congressmen have received thousands of brown paper bags in the mail, with messages written on them urging Congress to pass the "Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act." 

 I am told that, as of today, military retirees and their families and supporters have sent over 20,000 paper bags to Congress and that more are arriving every day." 

"In recent years the Courts have laid to rest the question of who is responsible for making good on promises of lifetime health care that were made to young men and women who joined the service during the World War II and Korean War eras,' said Van Hollen. 

 "Recruits were promised by their own government that if they served a career of 20 years in military service, then they and their dependents would receive health care upon retirement.  But while these career soldiers put their lives on the line for our country, the government did not keep its end of the contract."

 In June, 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider a November 12, 2002 Federal Appeals Court ruling in a suit filed against the government of the United States on behalf of World War II and Korean War era military retirees. 

Retired Air Force Colonel George "Bud" Day, a highly decorated Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, filed a breach of contract suit on behalf of two retired colonels who contended they had been recruited into military service as young men with the promise of lifetime health care upon retirement after serving at least 20 years in uniform. 

In 1956, long after Col. Day's clients signed up for military duty, Congress enacted the first laws that defined, and began to limit, the level of health care that would be provided to military retirees. 

These laws, which took effect on December 7, 1956, made health care available at military facilities conditioned on space availability - in other words, military retirees had to go to the end of the line and wait for health care.  Subsequent laws removed them entirely from the military health care system when they became eligible for Medicare, resulting in a dramatic reduction in health care benefits. 

"The Appeals Court ruled against the plaintiffs on a technicality, arguing that promises by recruiters were invalid because only Congress could authorize military health care, which Congress had not done when the plaintiffs entered the service," said Van Hollen. 

"But although the retired colonels lost their case on that technicality, I believe they won their moral battle on principle." 

The Court ruling said, in part,

"We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War eras involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life.  The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. . . . 

Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees. 

Van Hollen continued, "The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act was originally introduced in 1999 to acknowledge the promises made in good faith to America's military retirees. 

But now that the Courts have ruled, it is more important than ever that Congress pass this bill.   The Courts have ruled that legally only Congress can make good on promises made to our military retirees."  

The new bill offers more meaningful restitution for broken promises by waiving the Medicare Part B premium for World War II and Korean era military retirees. The new bill also addresses broken promises made to military retirees who joined the service after 1956. 

"Even though laws were on the books beginning in 1956 that defined and limited military retiree health care," he said, "the sad truth is that the empty promise of lifetime health care was used as a recruiting tool for many years beyond the scope of Col. Day's case, to those who entered the military after 1956. 

This is documented in recruiting literature well into the 1990s.  We must keep our promises to them, too."   These retirees, mainly from the Vietnam and Persian Gulf eras, qualify for the military health care program known generally as Tricare. 

"Tricare works well for many military retirees but fails to deliver quality health care for others," said Van Hollen.  "Some retirees cannot receive care at military bases due to lack of space availability. 

Base closures have cut off access for many retirees, and too many of them cannot find private doctors who will put up with bureaucratic inefficiencies or low reimbursements they have encountered with Tricare." 

Van Hollen believes strongly that military retirees who are not well served by Tricare deserve an alternative. The "Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act" offers these retirees the option of enrolling in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).  

The bill improves this benefit for military retirees by reimbursing them for expenses they incur under FEHBP that they would not have incurred under Tricare.   #### 
_______________________________________________
Classact mailing list
Classact@classact-lawsuit.com