Preparing For War, Bush Spurns Veterans

www.thebostonchannel.com ^ | POSTED: 12:25 p.m. EST January 7, 2003 | Helen Thomas

[aSkeptic]

WASHINGTON -- Veterans groups are angry at President George W. Bush for supporting a 1995 government decision to rescind an old promise of free lifetime health benefits for military retirees.

This is the man who told veterans and active-duty military personnel after the 2000 campaign that he would make sure "promises made to our veterans will be promises kept." So why does he persist in short-changing the retirees, especially when he is preparing for another war and hoping to lure more volunteers for the military?

Many World War II and Korean conflict veterans have been hopping mad ever since the Pentagon welshed on the deal recruiters promised them when they signed up -- that if they served 20 or more years, they and their dependents would get free health care benefits for life.

[Hugin]

This particular promise was made by thousands of recruiters to millions of GIs. The recruiters did so in good faith. Recruiters are agents of the government and the government should be bound by a promise made by thousands of them. If you own a business and your salesman makes a promise, you're bound by it...Why is the goobermint different?

Because it is. You cannot under US law sue the Federal Government unless Congress first passes a law authorizing you to do so. Remember, it wouldn't be the people who made the promises that pay for it, it would be you and me. As to why that is important, let me give you an example. Many soldiers are recruited with promises that they can be trained and go into a specific field of the military. For example, in WWII many were promised to be anti-aircraft radar operators. Indeed, they were trained and sent to Europe as such. However when they arrived there the Germans no longer had an effective air force, but ground units were decimated and replacements were desperately needed. Guess what? Those troops found themselves toting rifles on the front line. Imagine if all of them (and their relatives) could sue the government for breaking a promise?

On the broader picture, the executive branch has no authority under the constitution to authorize spending, current or future. What Bush is defending is really the right of the Federal Government not to be bound to pay for promises made by the executive branch, however well intended.

I do take Bush at his word that he will review the situation. Hopefully he will come up with a satisfactory solution in the future, but for now he has to defend the legal position of the adminstration.

[NonValueAdded]

From the full article -

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who has announced he is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said after the court ruling that "it is extraordinary to me that you give your entire career in defense of this country and then have to go to court to make the government keep its promise."[emphasis added]

Senator, please tell us what you said back in 1995 when the Clinton administration implemented this policy.

Also from the article -

The court noted that the government conceded that the military recruiters did indeed make the promises. But in a 9-4 decision, it said the Defense Department was correct in arguing that the assurances were not valid because Congress never passed a law backing them up.

Senator Kerry, please tell us the bill number of your legislation to fund this promise.

While I can see the merit in a technical defense of not enshrining every recruiter's promise into reality, the Bush administration would be well served to address the specific issue through legislation. If they really want to help the veterans and their families, they will propose vouchers for private insurance - anything but the VA!

[F16Fighter]

"The author of this piece is HELEN THOMAS."

LOL -- 'Nuff said.

[Rider on the Rain]

TRICARE pays as primary for retirees not eligible for Medicare.

[Theyknow]

"Senator, please tell us what you said back in 1995 when the Clinton administration implemented this policy"

Clinton was a liar and a hypocrite. Bush said that he would work to keep the promises, why isn't Bush working for our veterans? I know about Helen, but what is the President doing? Not Clinton, our President, we count on him to fix Clinton's messes.

[ErnBatavia]

23 replies without the obligatory??? Wassup?

[geedee]

[sinkspur]

If you own a business and your salesman makes a promise, you're bound by it.

Actually, it depends. Verbal contracts are a tricky thing, especially with regards to pricing.

I've been in hi-tech and software sales for 25 years, and I've seen companies walk away from a deal rather than honor a promise or a price made by a sales person.

[xzins]

I'm a member of VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) and DAV (Disabled American Veterans.) Unfortunately, everything in the article is true. I absolutely salute President Bush, but on this one he's wrong. Very, Very Wrong!

I just received both my VFW and my DAV monthly magazines. The reports were terribly disappointing. The case for 100% care is being carried forward to the Supreme Court.

It gets worse. Imagine that you become disabled at General Motors. You're able to continue working because it's just a 40 or 50 percent disability. To cover your disability they give you money to cover the extra medical expense per month. You finish out your 30 years at General Motors and retire. You go to get your retirement check like the other guys and they have deducted nothing from their check, but they have deducted from your check the value of the disability check they give you. In effect, at retirement they started charging you for your own disability and recouping it from your retirement check. You'd go ballistic.

This is ALSO what they've done to the military for years. They won't permit you to receive disability and military retirement at the same time (concurrent receipt.)

However, if you had gotten out of the Army after your accident or injury, you would have immediately started receiving the disability payment. You could go to work the very next day for the Government Bureaucracy, even the Dept of Defense, and get that check every day you worked for them. Then you could retire as a civil servant after 30 years working for the ARMY and then when you retire you could get BOTH the disability and the retirement check.

Retire from the military, though, and you cannot.

And they've reneged on the life health care promise. So, in effect, if they had any excuse in the past for not giving concurrent receipt, now they have none.

Broken promises. Bush is wrong not to sign off on both of these.....at a minimum, he should sign off on one of them.

[homeschool mama]

I'm sorry, but my Lord God in heaven, that woman is ugly. From her heart to her appearance...ugly.

[fightinJAG]

I don't want Helen Thomas speaking for Veterans.

Helen Thomas does not speak for veterans.

She is an old biddie who lies constantly about President Bush.

[winin2000]

When the HELL is the White House going to bounce this old bat from the press room? Aren't those seats supposed to be reserved for ostensibly "objective" reporters?

Is National Review, The Nation, or any other ideologically slanted mag allowed reporters in there?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Thomas files straight-up news stories anymore, only this toxic column of hers.

[BlackbirdSST]

I'm skeptical of anything by Hell n Thomas. The issue is real, regardless of who signed off on the print. Blackbird.

[BlackbirdSST]

No your not. Ever have a car salesman make a "promise" while out on the lot just to have it disappear when at "the table"?

If you sign off on it, who's the bigger fool? The goobermint made a Contract, but as usual, prove right out in front of everyone, they had no intent on standing behind it. That said, you could shut the whole mess down tomorrow (goobermint), and my life would not be impacted. Blackbird.

[homeschool mama]

Could you share your thoughts on post 29 by xzins? Thanks.

[Hugin]

I think there is a difference between defending the policy, and defending the right of the adminstration to decide on the policy, not the courts. That's what Bush is doing here. What the eventual poicy will be remains to be seen.

[Phantom Lord]

My post had nothing to do with the military, nor the government. So a reply directed at such is wrong.

Dispute my point. The owner of a business is not legally bound to provide something a salesman promises.

[FreedomCalls]

Tricare for life seems to apply only to people 65 or over. I clearly remember that when I joined the Navy I was told that people who served 20 years or more would have free health care for life including family coverage. I could have retired at age 36 and 1/2 with credit for 20 years. That leaves a long time until 65.

Huh?

If you have 20 years and are retired you get full health care for you and your dependents under Tricare. Under the old law, Tricare stopped when you reached 65 and Medicare took over. The new law "Tricare for Life" filled in after 65 and continued the same coverage you had until 65. That is why the "Tricare for Life" law only refers to people over 65, as people from retirement on up until 65 were already covered.

Helen is in a time warp. Tricare covers you truely "for life" now, under, over, or at age 65.

[xzins]

from your lips to God's ears.

Point: Bush didn't create these policies. These were created over the years by other administrations. The Clinton cabal killed lifetime medical care.

But he has had a chance to fix them and he hasn't. It's the one area I want him to act. That 15 billion going to Africa Aids goes instead to our own veterans and we've got it licked.

[Cacophonous]

That's OK. We can't Republicans to their promises. After all, they're Republicans.