Many military retirees and othersseeking these increases, or attempting to prevent any decrease in their benefits, often argue theirclaims based on assertions that the medical care promised to them is no longer available. (2) In certain instances,organizations representing military retirees have alluded to broken promises. Some individuals havestated that the promised benefits included what they term "free" health care for life; others describethe promise as "free care for life in military health care facilities." As implemented by the Department of Defense, and interpreted by the courts, retireesand their dependents , while eligible for care on a space- or service-available basis, have no statutoryentitlement to such care, thereby taking the position that the military services have full discretiondetermining when and under what circumstances retirees and their dependents will receive care frommilitary treatment facilities or MTFs. Although it required no premiums, CHAMPUS didrequire cost sharing on the part of the beneficiary. Many appear to believe that they were "promised freehealth care for life at military facilities." Efforts to locate written authoritative documentation ofsuch "promises" have not been successful. Other sources have stated that such promises, whether or not actually made, are groundless. (B) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.- It is the sense of the Congress that-
(1) the United States has incurred a moral obligation to provide health care tomembers and former members of the Armed Forces who are entitled to retired or retainer pay(or its equivalent);
(2) it is, therefore, necessary to provide quality, affordable health care to such retirees;and,
(3) Congress and the President should take steps to address the problems associatedwith the availability of health care for such retirees within two years after the date of theenactment of this Act. Among their provisions, H.R. Lawyers representing Schismargued to the court that Schism was promised "free lifetime care at military facilities." Some have claimed that these are the most generous health carebenefits offered by the Federal government. From their perspective, theUnited States has made good on those benefits afforded military retirees under law. The report encouraged an increase in fees. The eligible employee may receive full health benefits coveragefrom TRICARE and the TRICARE Supplement (no deductibles, no co-pays, and noout-of-pocket costs).
Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their dependents, andthose representing their interests, state that they were promised "free health care for life at militaryfacilities" as part of their "contractual agreement" when they entered the armed forces. Efforts tolocate authoritative documentation of such promises have not been successful. Congressional reportlanguage and recent court decisions have rejected retiree claims seeking 'free care at militaryfacilities' as a right or entitlement. These have stated that the medical benefit structure made up ofmilitary health care facilities, Tricare and Medicare currently provide lifetime health care to militarymembers, retirees and their respective dependents. Nevertheless, claims continue to be made,particularly by those seeking additional benefits from the Department of Defense, or attempting toprevent an actual or perceived reduction in benefits.
Recent changes in the availability of military benefits and eligibility for these benefits havelead to speculation that retiree out-of-pocket costs may be increased. Growth in military health carespending, it has been argued, will lead to increased competition for defense dollars. Groupsrepresenting military retirees have stated that it is among their objectives to prevent what theydescribe as cost-shifting from the military to the beneficiaries. Although military health care isarguably among the most generous health benefit programs available, these groups see potentialincreases in out-of-pocket beneficiary payments as a part of the "broken promise."