As a retired military veteran, it has caused great concern to me and countless others what this government had done to veterans in the area of health care. Those that are disabled and need to go to the VA are routinely ignored, or given appointments up to six months in advance, or totally ignored all together.

Those that who are not disabled, and retired after at least 20 years of service are routinely given more and more obstacles to the health care that we are promised. This is what todays posting is going to address. To start, a little history is required.

In 1995, Hillary Clinton was put in charge of a disastrous health care policy. The program itself was turned down by Congress, but certain parts were allowed to slip through. One part that caused great damage to veterans was the limiting of health care.

One of the lawyers that was working on this was a gentlemen by the name of Phillip Earl Jones from San Antonio. Along with his partner Sean Campbell took the case to the Federal Court. Mr. Jones also discussed the challenge of trying to revive the health care that veterans were promised with Tom Brokaw on the “Fleecing of America in January of 2001. The case (Bothard, vs DOD and DOJ) was scheduled to arrive at the D.C. Court of Appeals when Mr. Jones and Campbell were approached by a few senators who wanted to discuss with them “Tricare for Life”.

“ Tricare for life” was to be a program that continued to make sure the veterans received the benefits that they deserve. In a handshake deal, the case was dismissed among all involved. What was not discussed was that to obtain “Tricare for Life” veterans were required to purchase Medicare Part B at a cost of $216.00 a month. So it still costs more money that many veterans, including myself ,can afford to pay.

In 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals reached an astonishing decision that military veterans have no legal standing and the U.S. Government could break the promise made to them and was not liable to provide lifetime health care.

More well known is the case brought by Colonel George “Bud” Day USAF, Ret. In his case, Col Day makes the argument that the decision is misguided and should not punish military veterans for budget waste that the government is responsible for.

The Department of Defense, mostly non veteran bureaucrats has willfully breached a contract with Americas veterans. Tricare for life has been tied to a mandatory payment to Medicare Part B and costs many of our older veterans up to $3,600 which they had been promised since the day they joined. Many of our older veterans, many with disabilities, have been forced to leave military hospitals and forced to rely on Medicare.
This is the time line provided by


Lawsuit History:
July 1996: Plaintiffs file suit for monetary damages in Federal District Court in Pensacola, FL., charging age discrimination, 5th amendment taking of property and breach of contract.
June 1997: District Court dismisses plaintiffs’ claim of age discrimination, but agrees to hear further argument on their 5th amendment taking of property and breach-of-contract theories.
August 1998: District Court denies plaintiffs’ entire petition.
December 1998: Plaintiffs appeal to US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C.
March 2000: Federal court hears oral arguments of the parties.
February 2001: Three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC overturns the district court decision. Finds that military retirees who entered service before June 7, 1956, had been promised free lifetime health care in return for a career of military service and were due compensation of up to $10,000 each for the government’s failure to live up to that promise.
June 2001: Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC agrees to a rehearing before the full (en banc) court.
March 6, 2002: Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington, DC hears oral argument in the case.
November 18, 2002: Current court ruling affirming the US Government position that military retirees have no legal standing to receive the medical care promised
The government had no problem admitting that the promises were made, and even in writing in the manuals provided to the Marine Corps and Navy. It was the Department of Defense that convinced the courts that the assurances were not backed up by formal law. Even the judges that ruled against the veterans were discomforted by the decision. These judges claimed “ we can only hope that Congress will make good on the promises made in good faith”.
The dissenting judges were even more forthright: “Our veterans were told, if you disrupt your family, work for low pay, endanger your life and limb, we will in turn guarantee lifetime health care. There is no doubt the government made the offer.”


Tricare for Life, first incorporated in 2001 as part of the Managed Care Support Contracts in 2001. It was enacted by Congress to complaints to assist in the payment of rising out of pocket costs to veterans and did not require retirees to pay for Medicare. Te small clause that is not discussed by Congress, once again is the mandatory purchase of Medicare Part B to be eligible for Tricare for Life. So although there is not cost for Tricare for Life there is a cost involved.

Changes have been made to the US Code that covers military health care. The U.S. Code used to read “shall provide” authorized and established free health care. In December 1956, the wording was changed to “may” provide heath care.

In 1966, congress created CHAMPUS while changing the law to keep veterans from using active duty Military Treatment Facilities.
It was in 1994 that Congress, with John McCail a leading proponent, established Tricare and cancelled all health care for retirees over 65, forcing them to spend money many of them do not have on Medicare

Major Commands, recruiters, Unit Commands and from the Secretary of Defense on down all made promises that they have broken to veterans that have given a major portion of their lives to the country. The promise of never having to worry about health care costs for a lifetime was a selling point for reenlistments and career choices. Today, there is a deep resentment of this government by veterans to those who have spent years lying to those who protect our country. The low wages that active duty were paid was dismissed as something they must endure to get the free health care they were promised, a promise that those who have never served broke for budget purposes without thinking of the damage done to the veterans involved.

Doctors are opting out of Medicare and Tricare because once again the government has cut the payments to doctors to the point where they lose money by assisting veterans. Once again, the government also wants to raise co-pays and enrollment fees that military veterans pay. There is more, but let’s see what the candidates have to say.
The question is, how can veterans have any faith in a government that lied to them. The numbers of those willing to join the military will dwindle as word gets out further that this government does not stand by its military retirees, but will spend billions of giving illegal aliens everything they need to live well.

It will be interesting to see if the President will address this debacle.
I will be waiting for an answer.
All veterans: I have discussed this Mr. Phillip Earl Jones who along with Bud Day filed court proceeding in Texas about 15 years ago. There is a petition on to send to Congress. Let me know if you want your name on it, and I will assure that it gets to the right people. Send your comments to

Originally written for Intellectual, sign this petition and let veterans know that we have their back.


Views: 12

Reply to This



Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service