Trashing Tricare -Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US mil

[PortDawg]

BY: Bill Gertz - February 27, 2012 3:36 pm

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

“When they talked to us, they did mention the option of healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. So it’s in their mind,” said a congressional aide involved in the issue.

Military personnel from several of the armed services voiced their opposition to a means-tested tier system for Tricare, prompting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey to issue a statement Feb. 21.

Dempsey said the military is making tough choices in cutting defense spending. In addition to the $487 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon is facing automatic cuts that could push the total reductions to $1 trillion.

“I want those of you who serve and who have served to know that we’ve heard your concerns, in particular your concern about the tiered enrollment fee structure for Tricare in retirement,” Dempsey said. “You have our commitment that we will continue to review our health care system to make it as responsive, as affordable, and as equitable as possible.”

Under the new plan, the Pentagon would get the bulk of its savings by targeting under-65 and Medicare-eligible military retirees through a tiered increase in annual Tricare premiums that will be based on yearly retirement pay.

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.

The changes are worrying some in the Pentagon who fear it will severely impact efforts to recruit and maintain a high-quality all-volunteer military force. Such benefits have been a key tool for recruiting qualified people and keeping them in uniform.

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” said the congressional aide. “Would anybody accept their taxes being raised 345 percent in five years? Probably not.”

A second congressional aide said the administration’s approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military.

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity,” this aide said. “But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.”

The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,” the second aide said.

Spokesmen for the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not respond to requests for comment on the Tricare increases.

The massive increases beginning next year appear timed to avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year, critics of the plan say.

Additionally, the critics said leaving civilian workers’ benefits unchanged while hitting the military reflect the administration’s effort to court labor unions, as government unions are the only segment of organized labor that has increased in recent years.

As part of the increased healthcare costs, the Pentagon also will impose an annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, a new program that all military retirees automatically must join at age 65. Currently, to enroll in Tricare for Life, retirees pay the equivalent of a monthly Medicare premium.

Under the proposed Pentagon plan, retirees will be hit with an additional annual enrollment fee on top of the monthly premium.

Congressional aides said that despite unanimous support among the military chiefs for the current healthcare changes, some senior officials in the Pentagon are opposing the reforms, in particular the tiered system of healthcare.

“It doesn’t matter what the benefit is, whether it’s commissary, PX, or healthcare, or whatever … under the rationale that if you raise your hand and sign up to serve, you earn a base set of benefits, and it should have nothing to do with your rank when you served, and how much you’re making when you retire,” the first aide said.

Military service organizations are opposing the healthcare changes and say the Pentagon is “means-testing” benefits for service personnel as if they were a social program, and not something earned with 20 or more years of military service.

Retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley, of the Military Officers Association of America, said the Military Coalition, 32 military service and veterans groups with an estimated 5 million members, is fighting the proposed healthcare increases, specifically the use of mean-testing for cost increases.

“We think it’s absolutely wrong,” Beasley told the Free Beacon. “This is a breach of faith” for both the active duty and retiree communities.

Congressional hearings are set for next month.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars on Feb. 23 called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the healthcare increases.

“There is no military personnel issue more sacrosanct than pay and benefits,” said Richard L. DeNoyer, head of the 2 million-member VFW. “Any proposal that negatively impacts any quality of life program must be defeated, and that’s why the VFW is asking everyone to join the fight and send a united voice to Congress.”

Senior Air Force leaders are expected to be asked about the health care cost increases during a House Armed Services Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday.

Congress must pass all the proposed changes into law, as last year’s defense authorization bill preemptively limited how much the Pentagon could increase some Tricare fees, while other fees already were limited in law.

Tricare for Life, Tricare Prime, and Tricare Standard increases must be approved, as well as some of the pharmacy fee increases, congressional aides said.

Current law limits Tricare fee increases to cost of living increases in retirement pay.

Link

I know a lot of you don't care but this is just another broken promise...

[Joecooool]

Well, that article leaves a few things out. The reason the civilian program didn't go up was because it was already much higher. Its still much higher that the new plan.

You might not want to demonize the "unionized" civilians (which clearly was the point of the article). MOST of them are retired or ex military.

Finally, a retired Colonel that they use for an example makes more than $10,000 a MONTH. I can't see getting choked up on $2K a year health care expenses.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Well, that article leaves a few things out. The reason the civilian program didn't go up was because it was already much higher. Its still much higher that the new plan.

You might not want to demonize the "unionized" civilians (which clearly was the point of the article). MOST of them are retired or ex military.

Finally, a retired Colonel that they use for an example makes more than $10,000 a MONTH. I can't see getting choked up on $2K a year health care expenses.

They are ALL retired Colonel/Captains in the Wash DC region....


now how about the guys here on my block?? retired Chiefs/maybe Sgt.....

[PortDawg]

I'm a retired E-7...please continue...

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Well, that article leaves a few things out. The reason the civilian program didn't go up was because it was already much higher. Its still much higher that the new plan.

You might not want to demonize the "unionized" civilians (which clearly was the point of the article). MOST of them are retired or ex military.

Finally, a retired Colonel that they use for an example makes more than $10,000 a MONTH. I can't see getting choked up on $2K a year health care expenses.

So Phil where are the cuts to the non producers? You know the deadbeat, Druggies, Dropouts and Drunks we pay 700 billion a year to keep breeding new members of the entitlement class?

Why start with a group of people who have spent decades traveling around the world putting their life on the line VS cutting a Senators staffer massive retirement program?

Why cut into their medical benefits while at the same time demanding we expand Medicaid to support those to F**king stupid or just plain lazy to pay for their own?

[73sbVert]

Originally Posted by PortDawg

I'm a retired E-7...please continue...

Retired E6 here... yes, please continue. Keep putting that foot in your mouth a little deeper there Phil.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Finally, a retired Colonel that they use for an example makes more than $10,000 a MONTH. I can't see getting choked up on $2K a year health care expenses.

It's painfully obvious that either you have never spent any time in uniform, or did the absolute minimum, or just plain don't care about those of us that DID make a career out of the military.
One of the many reasons we usually stayed for at least 20, out to 30 yrs of our lives serving this country was because of the promise that our government made. Is it too much to ask for roughly 1% of the population to get a little bit of a break on this considering the sacrifices we made??

Meanwhile, I suppose you'd rather all those "poor" people (who STILL have more than I did when I was an E3, E4, E5, even E6) get all those entitlements? That they've never earned??

Originally Posted by VITE1

So Phil where are the cuts to the non producers? You know the deadbeat, Druggies, Dropouts and Drunks we pay 700 billion a year to keep breeding new members of the entitlement class?

Why start with a group of people who have spent decades traveling around the world putting their life on the line VS cutting a Senators staffer massive retirement program?

Why cut into their medical benefits while at the same time demanding we expand Medicaid to support those to F**king stupid or just plain lazy to pay for their own?

^^^ This.


F'king IDIOT in the oval is such a POS.

Phil, how in the world you can continue to support that Azzhole, idiot, moron, condescending prick, I have no idea.

I have no respect for anyone that DOES support that ass.

[wwomanC6]

So all those Vets coming back with missing legs and arms struggling to find their way back into civilian world now have a bigger worry. They risk life and limb and now have to dig deeper in their pockets to pay for their medical recovery because of Tricare increases. Is this how we treat our vets! Reminds me of Vetinam! You did your part and this is the thanks you get!

Did we not learn anything from that era???

I served 20 years, retired Chief, and before I got out I was diagonosed with MS. There is no cure for MS. Try finding a company that will provide medical coverage for that without charging an arm and leg! Tricare is all I have! Thanks for your service, sorry about your luck now hand over all that hard earned cash!

A lot of military personnel coming back from serving oversea are being diagnosed with MS! How do I know this. Talk to personnel in the military medical field.

Really, this is how we honor all the military folks - take away their EARNED medical coverage!

F**k Obamacare! I would rather die than deal with his f**ked up care!!

God this makes me mad!!

[Torqaholic]

Originally Posted by PortDawg

...
I know a lot of you don't care but this is just another broken promise...

Care enough to start speaking the one language thieving liars understand... And that's not done with words.

[ft laud mike]

Clearly done for political gain, if $$ is taken from loser deadbeat, welfare scum, they will not vote for the pos again, and that is the majority of his voting block

[Broken Wind]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Finally, a retired Colonel that they use for an example makes more than $10,000 a MONTH. I can't see getting choked up on $2K a year health care expenses.

You are high. Show your math.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by 73sbVert

Retired E6 here... yes, please continue. Keep putting that foot in your mouth a little deeper there Phil.

It's painfully obvious that either you have never spent any time in uniform, or did the absolute minimum, or just plain don't care about those of us that DID make a career out of the military.
One of the many reasons we usually stayed for at least 20, out to 30 yrs of our lives serving this country was because of the promise that our government made. Is it too much to ask for roughly 1% of the population to get a little bit of a break on this considering the sacrifices we made??

Meanwhile, I suppose you'd rather all those "poor" people (who STILL have more than I did when I was an E3, E4, E5, even E6) get all those entitlements? That they've never earned??



^^^ This.

F'king IDIOT in the oval is such a POS.

Phil, how in the world you can continue to support that Azzhole, idiot, moron, condescending prick, I have no idea.

I have no respect for anyone that DOES support that ass.

First of all, let me address the personal BS. I did serve, I was in the US Army. Every male in my family has served including my kid is currently in the Air Force.

Now to get back to the discussion.

The cuts came at the request of the Pentagon. Its an insignificant increase that is more than offset by the annual increase in pay retirees get.

The guy that wrote the article in the original post left out some pretty important shit and wrote it specifically to go after Obama. Why don't you guys do some research on these things before jumping in with all the "Obama's the devil" bullshit???

Here is a slightly more rational article on the same story.

Updated: DoD to quadruple TRICARE fees for higher-earning retirees - FederalNewsRadio.com

Lets take a look -

"For TRICARE Prime, fees would increase from $520 per year for family coverage to $850 in 2016 in the lowest pay tier, which includes retirees who earn less than $22,589 per year in retired pay. The fees would be much steeper for those with larger pensions. In the highest tier, made up of retirees who earn more than $45,179, the annual fee would rise to $1,950."

So as you can see, the big increases - which are still small - are only going to the high earning retirees. You being a retired E6 will only see your cost increased a couple hundred dollars.

America is broke. The fix is going to require SHARED SACRIFICE. The problem is people that are already on the government tit don't want to give anything up. You stayed in because the government made you a promise. Guess what - the government promised all the other retirees things too. These are promises that can no longer be kept unless you want to dramatically raise taxes and you guys sure as shit won't have any of that. Everything needs to be scaled back. Spending across the board and especially Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and yes, military benefits too.

The really f'ed up thing about a lot of this is you guys dug your own hole. You voted Bush in who lead us to a multi trillion dollar war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. That directly brought all of us to where we are today. I remember putting up several threads back in 03 asking how we could afford to do this and being told by my CFOT brethren to pound sand because I was "un American".

The big picture is lost yet again, so the only logical retort is to try to crucify Obama because your health care cost just went up $20 a month.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Broken Wind

You are high. Show your math.

06 @ 30 yrs = $12,021 X .75 = $9,015.75 + SS = >$10,000.

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

06 @ 30 yrs = $12,021 X .75 = $9,015.75 + SS = >$10,000.

An O-6 retiring at 30 years would be roughly 55 years old. No Social Security for a few more years.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Oh you really want to go there about dogging how much people make? That went so well for you last time.

I never took exception to their income. What I have a problem with is bitching about paying less than 2% of your income on health care.

[Yerf Dog]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

America is broke. The fix is going to require SHARED SACRIFICE.

Will the money saved here be used to fix that problem?

[Broken Wind]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

06 @ 30 yrs = $12,021 X .75 = $9,015.75 + SS = >$10,000.

You are flat wrong. I fuggin hate how you make up your own facts. I don't care what your opinion is, but I'll be gawdamned if I'll let you post bullshit facts unchallenged.

The base pay for an O-6 TODAY at 30 yrs is $10,557.30. 75% of that is $7917.97. As already pointed out, SS doesn't enter the picture until many years later. Clearly, the colonel used as an example in that story is not making over $10,000 a month.

I'm not saying the colonel is going to be standing in soup lines, but dammit, if you are going to make an argument, make it based on real life and quit making up shit. Some of us actually know the military and know what we are talking about.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Broken Wind

You are flat wrong. I fuggin hate how you make up your own facts. I don't care what your opinion is, but I'll be gawdamned if I'll let you post bullshit facts unchallenged.

The base pay for an O-6 TODAY at 30 yrs is $10,557.30. 75% of that is $7917.97. As already pointed out, SS doesn't enter the picture until many years later. Clearly, the colonel used as an example in that story is not making over $10,000 a month.

I'm not saying the colonel is going to be standing in soup lines, but dammit, if you are going to make an argument, make it based on real life and quit making up shit. Some of us actually know the military and know what we are talking about.

Jesus****ingchrist. I read the wrong line.

2012 Military Pay Scale Chart Table

With SS they guy is still making over $10K so my point stands.

Can we get back to the discussion now?

[Broken Wind]

Why can't you just admit you padded your argument?

[GentleBen]

Okay, then what about an O-6 who retired 10 or more years ago (2002) and has seen his retirement pay decremented by at least 1% under the active duty raise. In this scenario our fictional Colonel made $7,650 during his last month on active duty. If we assume a 2% annual escalator (and that is high) for retirees his effective pay at retirement today is $9,142. Assuming he/she remained on active duty to the 30-year point to qualify for a 75% pension then his "pretax" income is $6,857/month. Further, he/she will pay tax on this amount - if we assume a 28% hit for Federal taxes, excluding such things as FICA and State taxes, then the take home is $4,937/month.

Therefore, when the current administration wants to raise this guy's payments by 345% then it has a serious impact.

And, as been stated previously, most of us are not bull-Colonels and this affects us all with the impact more strongly at lower levels.

And yes, I am one of those this will affect as I retired after 29.5 years of service (6 years enlisted in the Navy and 23.5 years commissioned in the Army) as a Lieutenant Colonel.

[RetiredSFC 97]

joe making a fool of himself again I see.