Obama To Cut Defense Budget - By Increasing Fees On Soldiers

What does this have to do with the topic? Nothing. That is why it is a strawman. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You do not think that a artice about the topic you started has anything to do with the topic you started?

You do understand that Gates was the one pushing this back a couple of years ago?

Of course people like JD do not want to raise their payment on insurance. They want people like me to pay for their insurance for life!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/us/29tricare.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — Francis Brady enjoys a six-figure salary and generous benefits at the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, but as a retired Marine lieutenant colonel he and his family remain on the military’s bountiful lifetime health insurance, Tricare, with fees of only $460 a year. He calls the benefit “phenomenal.”

It is so cheap compared to what Booz Allen has,” Colonel Brady said in a recent interview, acknowledging that premiums called for by private employers can run many times greater.
Of nearly 4.5 million military retirees and their families, about three-quarters are estimated to have access to health insurance through a civilian employer or group. But more than two million of them stay on Tricare. As the costs of private health care continue to climb, their numbers are only expected to grow.
Now, as part of a broad offensive to cut Pentagon spending, that group is once again in the sights of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is seriously considering whether to ask for Tricare fee increases in next year’s budget — and perhaps start one of the last fights of his public career. Originally Posted by WTF

Go ahead and distort all you want, Doofie. You will anyway. Read what I said. Nevermind, it won't matter. Go ahead, distort. Feel better about yourself.

But I AM opposed to cutting to defense budget costs on the backs of soldiers.

You do understand that Gates was the one pushing this back a couple of years ago? Originally Posted by WTF

Actually it goes back to Rumsfeld pushing to raise it.

Well, then, Rummy was wrong, too. But that's not a surprise.

But I AM opposed to cutting to defense budget costs on the backs of soldiers.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, if we shouldn't raise their health premiums, then what should their health premiums be? Exactly? Give us a figure.

Yssupooves, my son said them ac's never worked anyway. Keep Fucking with these defenders of your sorry asses you will regrete it. Sooner than later.

back to the topic, when I was on active duty, everything was at cost at the commissary with no sales tax, so do not understand the need for food stamps

Doofie, I've asked a similar type of question in other threads, only to be flamed or ignored. So why should I answer yours? You ask it simply to be cute, and to try to turn my words around on me, so you can scream "Answer!" Even though you fail to answer any question put to you.

So there's really no point in answering your question. You will distort it and misinterpret it to make yourself feel better about your pathetic little life.

But I'll answer it anyway. Active duty enlisted service personnel should pay nothing for their health care. If that raises the defense budget too much, let's end some wars and cancel unnecessary weapons programs, close some (or all) foreign bases and not start any new foreign military action without a Congressional Declaration of War.

Satisfied? Now distort away. Have fun.

But I'll answer it anyway. Active duty enlisted service personnel should pay nothing for their health care. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So you cry about deficits, including bloated defense spending, but when push comes to shove (and in your desire to be Mr. Opposite of Obama) you're willing to spend even more on defense.

Got it!

So you cry about deficits, including bloated defense spending, but when push comes to shove (and in your desire to be Mr. Opposite of Obama) you're willing to spend even more on defense.

Got it! Originally Posted by Doove

StupidOldFart is 100% in favor of national defense as long as someone other than himself is doing the defending!

I agree with COG about current military not being effected. But for people like JD, who are retired military, that constantly come on here talking about the need to cut government spending ....not being for means tested healthcare benifits is somewhat ironic. Ironic in the fact that they would rather put their needs above future men and women that may head to combat.

But COG's point was not to present a balanced debate on this subject matter. It was to go on the offensive towards the current President to score political points with those not versed in the actual subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The battle over Tricare pits the efforts of the Pentagon to contain the exploding cost of health care for nearly 10 million eligible beneficiaries against the pain and emotions of those who say they have already “paid up front” with service in uniform, particularly those who deployed to America’s two current wars. The 10 million figure includes active-duty personnel, retirees, members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families.
The arguments reflect the broader debate over the huge Pentagon budget that will intensify next year when Mr. Gates, who says he will step down in 2011, continues his campaign to cut off what he calls the “gusher” of defense spending. Total health care costs for the Pentagon, which is the nation’s single largest employer, top $50 billion a year, a tenth of its budget and about the same amount that it is spending this year on the war in Iraq. Ten years ago, health care cost the Pentagon $19 billion; five years from now it is projected to cost $65 billion.
But Tricare fees have not increased since 1995.
“Health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive,” Mr. Gates said in a much-noticed speech in May. Defense budget analysts say that rising health care costs will make less money available for new weapons, repairs to a worn-out arsenal and quality-of-life programs like schools on military bases.
“In the long run, it could actually limit our ability to field a military of sufficient size,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

Reminds me of when Clinton charged a tax on the things that soldiers buy at the PX or military exchanges. Not luxuries but uniform items to offset the cost of the deployment to Bosnia. Like or not Clinton also started veterans paying a copay for our meds.

I have sent in my ideas for the federal government, eliminate federal taxes for active duty soldiers. That is a pay increase right there and it would be right and fair. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Good idea. I would support that! In a second.
I wouldn't normally agree with you ... Except this is a REALLY
Good concept! +1

Doofie, I've asked a similar type of question in other threads, only to be flamed or ignored. So why should I answer yours? You ask it simply to be cute, and to try to turn my words around on me, so you can scream "Answer!" Even though you fail to answer any question put to you.

So there's really no point in answering your question. You will distort it and misinterpret it to make yourself feel better about your pathetic little life.

But I'll answer it anyway. Active duty enlisted service personnel should pay nothing for their health care. If that raises the defense budget too much, let's end some wars and cancel unnecessary weapons programs, close some (or all) foreign bases and not start any new foreign military action without a Congressional Declaration of War.

Satisfied? Now distort away. Have fun.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Doofie, here's my entire quote. I would cut defense by at leaset 1/3, and I said so in my post. Like I said, distort and misrepresent. It's what Doofies do best.

[SIZE=3]But COG's point was not to present a balanced debate on this subject matter. It was to go on the offensive towards the current President to score political points with those not versed in the actual subject. Originally Posted by WTF

Fuck you, WTF. I don't need to score points. I post what I believe, regardless of which side it effects.

But you and Doofie can't argue with me on substance, so you have to distort and misrepresent what I say.

Go ahead. You will anyway.

Fuck you, WTF. I don't need to score points. I post what I believe, regardless of which side it effects.

But you and Doofie can't argue with me on substance, so you have to distort and misrepresent what I say.

Go ahead. You will anyway. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Here is you distorted initial post...

You got it. Our armed forces now routinely qualify for food stamps, and Obama wants to reduce the Defense department budget by increasing their cost for healthcare.

Seriously.

And you support this guy? Unbelievable.

http://freebeacon.com/obama-to-soldiers-pay-up/ Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Don't get mad at me when I catch you with your pants down in the middle of yet another distortion.

Means testing is something they need to do. I do not need to continue to pay for JD healthcare if he has another job teaching poor unsuspecting students Tea Party lies!