VA healthcare cuts

[deltamedic]

The VA as you may know is no longer accepting any new patients for the rest of '03 due to the overload. June 30th the VA will no longer be required to assist any veteran in obtaining records or info to assit them in filing a claim either.
Its pathetic that any veteran has to fight tooth and nail to get what the gov't initially told us when we enlisted or were drafted. Most recall that you were told that the military and gov't would take care of you and your healthcare needs after service but as we have found out this isn't the case at all.
Every year both the state and federal sidea of gov't target the veterans benefits and healthcare system for part of their budget cuts. Every year the vets have to call, write, pickett, and scream bloody murder at these idiots to retain the monies in the budget for our healthcare.
Now, the current military may not have any VA healthcare at all once they come home. We are much like Sr Citizens in that we have inadequate care and some must decide on buying Rx or having food and a roof over their heads..WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!!!??? As poor as Russia is they have a national healthcare system, so too does England, Canada, Norway, and Sweden and you tell me as rich and as powerful a nation as the U.S. is to the world that we can't have a national healthcare system for our people?? bull fritters!!! It all boils down to the rich and politicians getting pieces of the pie and kickbacks from mfg of drugs...

VA med ctrs vary from locale to locale; as well as Vet Centers. I feel blessed that here we have 2 VA Hosp and a Vet Ctr that is Vet friendly and carry high marks.


Doc

[Gimpy]

Deltamedic. I feel very fortunate that I also have an excellent VA facility here in the Tampa/St. Pete area. Also, same, same about the freakin RICH and POLITICIANS and their conduct regarding your statements.

[theoddz]

I'm not meaning to sound inflammatory here or get tempers hot, but I have something to say here pertaining to "the promise" of gov't-provided free health care.

When I joined the USMC back in '79, I was never told that, if I served my country for 4 years (less than the required 20 years to retire) that the U.S. gov't would give me free health care for the rest of my life. I do believe, however, that I was told that, if I RETIRED from military service, that me and my dependents would be given free health and dental benefits for the rest of my life.

On the other hand, it was always understood that, if I served my country and got sick or injured, the gov't would compensate me for this and give me free medical treatment for my injuries/illnesses.

I work in a VA/DoD "shared" medical facility and the only people I see paying for their health care are the military retirees and their dependents....not to mention the dependents of active duty military. Most of the veterans I've seen hospitalized here are non-service connected, non-retired medically indigent patients and these vets don't even pay the copays.

I just wanted to have my say here.

Peace.

[MORTARDUDE]

"Broken Promises"
http://www.afa.org/magazine/editorial/01edit03.asp

January 2003 Vol. 86, No. 01

Ghosts in the Machine
Congress and the Administration should negotiate a fair settlement with retirees.

For US military retirees, the arrival of President Bush in the White House two years ago was a welcome event. Bush had spoken often of the need to honor the nation's veterans. He pledged to protect retiree benefits. And he vowed to put an end to government's "broken promises."

That last point got special emphasis from the new President. "We must keep our commitment to those who wore the uniform in the past," Bush noted on Jan. 19, 2001. "We will make sure promises made to our veterans will be promises kept."

The prime "broken promise," of course, concerned retiree medical care. A Bush campaign statement said the US "promised lifetime health care to career military personnel" but "we have reneged." It was a "contractual promise" Bush intended to fulfill.

To the exasperation of older retirees, however, even the Bush Administration has found the matter difficult to resolve quickly and in its entirety. This is evident in the course of an important retiree lawsuit seeking financial redress.

The issue is complicated, but the basic facts of this particular matter are not in dispute.

Retirees have long asserted they were promised free, lifetime care in military facilities after 20 years in uniform. This plan worked reasonably well until the 1990s, when two new factors emerged. First, thousands of retirees lost access to military clinics and hospitals due to base closures. Then, in 1995, the Clinton Administration announced a new military health care system, called Tricare. It excluded retirees 65 and older, who were told they had to use Medicare.

This twofold squeeze forced older retirees--mostly World War II and Korean War veterans--out of the DOD system and into a less-hospitable health care world. Many had to purchase supplemental policies, some costing hundreds of dollars a month.

In 1996, some retirees struck back, filing a federal lawsuit claiming breach of contract and seeking damages. Retired USAF Col. George "Bud" Day--Medal of Honor recipient, Vietnam POW, and lawyer--brought suit on behalf of two Air Force retirees. Some 22,000 others, age 65 and older, supported the suit and formed a possible legal class, called the "Class Act Group."

A trial court dismissed the suit, but Day appealed, and a three-judge panel of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington agreed to hear him.

The previous Administration at first denied that recruiters made health care promises, but in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, backed off the claim.

In court, federal lawyers conceded that recruiters had, indeed, made promises. However, they said, they had no statutory right to do so and thus the promises weren't valid. It was a legalistic approach, amply summed up in a March 2000 exchange between Judge Pauline Newman and E. Roy Hawkens, the lead government lawyer:

Newman: "You're not telling us that these promises were not made; you're just saying they don't have to be kept?"

Hawkens: "That's correct, your honor."

The retirees won that round in court. To the surprise of some, however, the case has continued, and there was a rehearing before the full appellate court. That was bad news for the retirees. The court, in a 9-4 ruling on Nov. 18, acknowledged the retirees had "moral claims" but said recruiter promises were not backed by a statute and thus were not binding on the government.

The case now heads for the Supreme Court and more uncertainty.

Without question, the actions of the government stem from worries about cost. Some have estimated that US liability could be significant, if it lost the case.

Whatever the cost, no one now disputes that World War II and Korean War veterans were promised free lifetime care. Recruiters offered it, service leaders supported it, service members counted on it, and Congress funded it through the regular health care appropriations. This, in the view of the Day group, was nothing if not a "contract."

The latest legal development comes on top of other struggles in recent years that have led to important gains for the majority of retirees. However, other retirees--especially elderly veterans, who are passing away at the rate of more than 1,000 a day--have become ghostly figures snarled in the complex machinery of government.

"What I find most troubling," wrote dissenting appeals court Judge S. Jay Plager, "is the insistence by the government, represented before us by the Department of Justice, to define the government's justice as a 'win' on any basis possible."

No one doubts that retiree health care has seen remarkable improvements in recent years. Congress and the Executive have worked together closely and effectively to improve retiree medical benefits. For one thing, Congress approved the Tricare for Life second-payer system for 65-and-over retirees. However, the new program is not free; 65-and-over retirees must enroll in Medicare and pay Part B premiums. More importantly, many older retirees already have sustained substantial out-of-pocket expenses.

While the court's majority could not find a legal basis to sustain the retiree case, it did express a "hope" that "Congress will make good on the promises recruiters made in good faith to plaintiffs and others of the World War II and Korean War era." The Bush Administration could make a good start toward resolving the problem by working closely with the Congress and opening negotiations for a fair and reasonable settlement that the older retirees could accept.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright Air Force Association. All rights reserved

[theoddz]

I'm wondering why the U.S. government is providing non-service connected indigent veterans (not retired) with essentially FREE and unlimited health care while it has renegged on the very ones whom they actually made a promise to (the retired ones)??????

That is disgusting and unexcuseable. The non-service connected indigent (Catagory 5) vets should be on Medicaid, which is a federally mandated and funded program for indigents. This would ease the strain on the VA facilities, which should be reserved for those who are service connected disabled. The DoD should do what it PROMISED for the retirees and their dependents and care for them either within the DoD health care system or fee based to the private sector.

Peace.

[deltamedic]

Well, believe it or not your desire and wish is about to come to bear fruit. The VA has decided that as a part of the cutbacks etc that it will have to drop the homeless veteran program, cut the ptsd program from 12 weeks to 8 weeks and now locally they are down to 6 weeks. Cat 8 and 7 vets are going to be cut as well. Personally, I don't think any veteran regardless of service time or monetary level should be denied health care from the VA. All served whether 6 mos or 20+ years; if you wore the uniform you should entitled period!! If we had some of the 24 billion Turker wanted to use their precious land to help us get in Iraq and if some 0f the 14 Million to Israel to help fight the Palestinians was used to help vets and the elderly on fixed income we might be able to turn things around for the better. There's got to come a time when America stops meddling and suppling millions and billions in foreign aid to police the entire world and let this country go to hade's and back. Don't mind helping others but take care of home 1st and foremost and if you'll note all other countries seem to look after #1 first then maybe share with the rest of the world but few ever give aid to America..its gimmee, gimmee, gimmee.

Doc