Posted on Nov 9, 2020
How many Tricare Select eligible people are interested in lobbying Congress to revisit the changes to Tricare Select?
1.93K
9
12
5
5
0
The changes effectively are changing it to an insurance policy. If you don’t live near a military healthcare facility (99% of retirees), you have to pay, otherwise you’re out of luck. Healthcare was a lifetime benefit promised to many of us, especially depending on when you were in.
How many of you are interested in organizing to lobby our elected officials?
How many of you are interested in organizing to lobby our elected officials?
Posted in these groups: 
Healthcare
Benefits
Healthcare Benefits
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
1
1
0
Lifetime Healthcare is not and never was a guaranteed entitlement.
Here's an excerpt from an article from 2000:
Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, and those representing their interests, state 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. Congressional report language and recent court decisions have rejected retiree claims seeking 'free care at military facilities' as a right or entitlement. These have stated that the medical benefit structure made up of military health care facilities, Tricare and Medicare currently provide lifetime health care to military members, retirees and their respective dependents. Nevertheless, claims continue to be made, particularly by those seeking additional benefits from the Department of Defense, or attempting to prevent an actual or perceived reduction in benefits
Though Congress has never authorized "free health care for life at military facilities," various congressional reports have commented on the issue, and there have been recent legislative actions on the subject. For example, the Senate, explaining its support of additional benefits for military retirees, included non-binding language in its report on the FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act that reiterated its intention with regard to the promise of lifetime care:
The issue of health care for military retirees over age 65 is of special concern to the committee. The nation has incurred a moral obligation to attempt to provide care to military retirees who believe they were promised lifetime health care in exchange for a lifetime of military service. The nation fulfills its obligation through Medicare.(32)</blockquote>
This language expresses the view that a "promise" to military retirees was made -- and that existing statutes and institutions do fulfill that promise.
Later, with the enactment of the FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress included the following language:
SEC. 752. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR RETIREES
(a) Findings.-Congress makes the follow findings:
(1) Many retired military personnel believe that they were promised lifetime heath care in exchange for 20 or more years of service.
There wasn't lifetime Healthcare promised 20 years ago and there hasn't been free Healthcare promised since then.
The issue with retirees and dependents being pushed off post came as part of an effort to maximize Healthcare providers to focus on Service members as opposed to dependents. Dependents and retirees are being pushed onto local providers and specialists are being eliminated in order to hire more general practice professionals. It's more complicated than this, but basically resources are being realigned towards active duty to improve readiness. This is a realignment that was initiated several years ago and is coming into fruition recently. You will be happy to learn that President elect Biden has indicated that he does not want this realignment to take place until a study has been completed showing that the local areas can handle this influx and that the dependents and retirees will not be adversely affected. I don't know how successful that will be because this is ultimately a budgetary and readiness issue that was decided by administrators, not congress or the president. Even if it is a political hot potato it was ultimately a financial decision for the Healthcare administration agency (I forget the name of the agency)
Here's an excerpt from an article from 2000:
Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, and those representing their interests, state 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. Congressional report language and recent court decisions have rejected retiree claims seeking 'free care at military facilities' as a right or entitlement. These have stated that the medical benefit structure made up of military health care facilities, Tricare and Medicare currently provide lifetime health care to military members, retirees and their respective dependents. Nevertheless, claims continue to be made, particularly by those seeking additional benefits from the Department of Defense, or attempting to prevent an actual or perceived reduction in benefits
Though Congress has never authorized "free health care for life at military facilities," various congressional reports have commented on the issue, and there have been recent legislative actions on the subject. For example, the Senate, explaining its support of additional benefits for military retirees, included non-binding language in its report on the FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act that reiterated its intention with regard to the promise of lifetime care:
The issue of health care for military retirees over age 65 is of special concern to the committee. The nation has incurred a moral obligation to attempt to provide care to military retirees who believe they were promised lifetime health care in exchange for a lifetime of military service. The nation fulfills its obligation through Medicare.(32)</blockquote>
This language expresses the view that a "promise" to military retirees was made -- and that existing statutes and institutions do fulfill that promise.
Later, with the enactment of the FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress included the following language:
SEC. 752. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR RETIREES
(a) Findings.-Congress makes the follow findings:
(1) Many retired military personnel believe that they were promised lifetime heath care in exchange for 20 or more years of service.
There wasn't lifetime Healthcare promised 20 years ago and there hasn't been free Healthcare promised since then.
The issue with retirees and dependents being pushed off post came as part of an effort to maximize Healthcare providers to focus on Service members as opposed to dependents. Dependents and retirees are being pushed onto local providers and specialists are being eliminated in order to hire more general practice professionals. It's more complicated than this, but basically resources are being realigned towards active duty to improve readiness. This is a realignment that was initiated several years ago and is coming into fruition recently. You will be happy to learn that President elect Biden has indicated that he does not want this realignment to take place until a study has been completed showing that the local areas can handle this influx and that the dependents and retirees will not be adversely affected. I don't know how successful that will be because this is ultimately a budgetary and readiness issue that was decided by administrators, not congress or the president. Even if it is a political hot potato it was ultimately a financial decision for the Healthcare administration agency (I forget the name of the agency)
(1)
(0)
GySgt (Join to see)
Wow! Great info and response. Definitely fits me. I enlisted in ‘79 and retired in ‘99. I was one of those under the impression. I think that the belief was established and never really corrected. Being such a substantial issue means a more substantive response to head off mid perception was warranted, but not done.
Regardless, still doesn’t mean that we cannot raise concerns nor work towards a different policy. Given the President elect has at least acknowledged it means that it has a higher chance of being addressed.
Regardless, still doesn’t mean that we cannot raise concerns nor work towards a different policy. Given the President elect has at least acknowledged it means that it has a higher chance of being addressed.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
GySgt (Join to see) I joined in 98 and before the internet there was a lot of "tribal knowledge" that was just common knowledge but wasn't really true. At least with the internet we can immediately go and look things up with Google. Back then, you had to ask an E7 who had to either recite it from memory or pull out a printed regulation from the bookshelf of regulations to look up the answer.
I don't think the military treatment facilities can be expected to handle the increased load of retirees and dependents forever. But as that article talks about in a different section, military retirees are the only government retirees who are restricted from accessing their paid for health insurance after the age of 65 and are referred to Medicare/Medicaid. That was 20 years ago and it's still an issue. I certainly hope Congress can address this and at least put us on par with other government retirees in this area.
I don't think the military treatment facilities can be expected to handle the increased load of retirees and dependents forever. But as that article talks about in a different section, military retirees are the only government retirees who are restricted from accessing their paid for health insurance after the age of 65 and are referred to Medicare/Medicaid. That was 20 years ago and it's still an issue. I certainly hope Congress can address this and at least put us on par with other government retirees in this area.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
GySgt (Join to see)
Hi Shavonde, I’m just thinking if we got organized and make a plan and build some communications we can raise our concerns to Congress assuming enough people get involved. I’m going to reach out to a friend who is fairly well placed to see if it’s something he can guide us on.
(1)
(0)
SSG Shavonde Chase
GySgt (Join to see) its interesting that this came up because just a few weeks ago I had a vision of me lobbying for health and wellness. I’ve never been into politics. It I’m ready to get started. When I start seeing myself doing things, I have to the need to follow through.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google