Obama recommends cutting healthcare benefits for active duty and retired military but NOT for civilian union workers on military bases.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obam...-union-workers
- satexasguy
- 12-08-2013, 07:32 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-09-2013, 07:13 AM
http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/
Trashing Tricare
Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US military
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.
Trashing Tricare
Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US military
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.
- phillyintexas
- 12-09-2013, 04:47 PM
I'm both retired military (24+ years) and a civilian service employee, so I follow the news closely on subjects like this. First of all both of these references are nearly two years old. Secondly, if you research the sources of the information you'll find they're quite biased. Thirdly, health care for the civilians is much in play when it comes to the administration and Congress. There are major proposals that will have a negative impact on many of the facets of working for the government as a civilian. They range from lowering medical coverage and increasing its cost, freezing pay with no raises for the past 3+ years but raising costs for medical care, decreasing the amount civilian retirees will receive in the future and increasing substantially how much must be paid for those retirement benefits. These cost cutting proposals are aimed at both the military and civilians--not just the military as stated above. If you're going to cut the budget and deficit the money must come from somewhere. Its much easier to cut the compensation for military and civilian employees than touch items like Medicare and Social Security which impacts many more voters.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-09-2013, 05:35 PM
I'm both retired military (24+ years) and a civilian service employee, so I follow the news closely on subjects like this. First of all both of these references are nearly two years old. Secondly, if you research the sources of the information you'll find they're quite biased. Thirdly, health care for the civilians is much in play when it comes to the administration and Congress. There are major proposals that will have a negative impact on many of the facets of working for the government as a civilian. They range from lowering medical coverage and increasing its cost, freezing pay with no raises for the past 3+ years but raising costs for medical care, decreasing the amount civilian retirees will receive in the future and increasing substantially how much must be paid for those retirement benefits. These cost cutting proposals are aimed at both the military and civilians--not just the military as stated above. If you're going to cut the budget and deficit the money must come from somewhere. Its much easier to cut the compensation for military and civilian employees than touch items like Medicare and Social Security which impacts many more voters. Originally Posted by phillyintexasThanks for your service. The article is 2 yrs old but it still applies. I do not want our military to pay for our politicians crap. We should cut government by 85-90% which will probably leave you without a job, but do not touch our military.
- Guest123018-4
- 12-09-2013, 07:48 PM
Obama has zero respect for the sacrifice of the men and women that volunteer.
- Yssup Rider
- 12-09-2013, 08:29 PM
Like you?
- BJerk
- 12-09-2013, 09:27 PM
If we wouldn't invade so many countries, we wouldn't need all the sacrifices. Let's stop killing people!!
- Yssup Rider
- 12-09-2013, 09:39 PM
Thanks for your service. The article is 2 yrs old but it still applies. I do not want our military to pay for our politicians crap. We should cut government by 85-90% which will probably leave you without a job, but do not touch our military. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB85-90 percent without touching the military?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now I know why you post YouTubes!
- CuteOldGuy
- 12-09-2013, 11:30 PM
- BJerk
- 12-10-2013, 07:11 AM
- phillyintexas
- 12-10-2013, 09:13 AM
The articles don't apply because the military are NOT being asked to take a "hit" on their medical care without the civilian servants being asked to take a hit. Actually, the hit the civilians are projected to take is larger. I rely on the military health care system for my medical care so I'm concerned about it. I also know you can't get "blood from a stone". If you don't raise revenue you must decrease expenses. One of the ways is to look at the cost of military health care. Am I concerned about that--you bet. I also know the amount we're paying "out of pocket" for Tricare hasn't increased in many years. How many things haven't gone up in price since the 1990s--especially costs related to medical expenses.
I work for DoD in civil service. If you eliminate my job (its deemed essential) it'll end up being staffed by military personnel which has been proven to cost more than the compensation currently paid to me. Are their other position that could be eliminate--yes. However, its not always a one-to-one relationship.
DoD consumes 17% of the US budget. To even get close to the 85% you stated you would need to eliminate totally:
Medicare
Medicaid
Social security
All Highway funding (no roads or bridges expanded or repaired)
All transportation funding (rail, air, bus, subway and etc.) Close airports
Eliminate all other features of US security (border security, port security, airport security, support to fight terrorism across the world, and etc.)
Stop all suppression of illegal drugs from crossing the border
Shutdown all of the banks and financial institutions
Do away with controlling flu, measles, and numerous diseases throughout the country
Close all of the prisons
Rampant food safety issues
Not regulate nuclear power plants or waste
No ability to help anybody after earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding and etc.
Stop all govt backed loans for education and mortgages
Your new job would be in a sweat shop since we'll no long monitor working conditions
No more weather forecasts from NOAA -- local weather forecasts rely heavily on it
The above will all be lost--and that's just the items I can think of off the top of my head. There are mannnnny more that would be shutdown.
Good luck with your proposal. This isn't fantasy land--all cuts have impacts.
I work for DoD in civil service. If you eliminate my job (its deemed essential) it'll end up being staffed by military personnel which has been proven to cost more than the compensation currently paid to me. Are their other position that could be eliminate--yes. However, its not always a one-to-one relationship.
DoD consumes 17% of the US budget. To even get close to the 85% you stated you would need to eliminate totally:
Medicare
Medicaid
Social security
All Highway funding (no roads or bridges expanded or repaired)
All transportation funding (rail, air, bus, subway and etc.) Close airports
Eliminate all other features of US security (border security, port security, airport security, support to fight terrorism across the world, and etc.)
Stop all suppression of illegal drugs from crossing the border
Shutdown all of the banks and financial institutions
Do away with controlling flu, measles, and numerous diseases throughout the country
Close all of the prisons
Rampant food safety issues
Not regulate nuclear power plants or waste
No ability to help anybody after earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding and etc.
Stop all govt backed loans for education and mortgages
Your new job would be in a sweat shop since we'll no long monitor working conditions
No more weather forecasts from NOAA -- local weather forecasts rely heavily on it
The above will all be lost--and that's just the items I can think of off the top of my head. There are mannnnny more that would be shutdown.
Good luck with your proposal. This isn't fantasy land--all cuts have impacts.
Thanks for your service. The article is 2 yrs old but it still applies. I do not want our military to pay for our politicians crap. We should cut government by 85-90% which will probably leave you without a job, but do not touch our military. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB
- Old-T
- 12-10-2013, 01:08 PM
IIFFy is not bothered by facts.
Again, thanks for putting some sanity on here.
It is so very easy to claim "we can cut waste and save billions", the problem is agreeing upon whose waste to cut.
I find it amazing how the same congressmen who scream about pork vote for the systems DoD buys in their district that the services say they can do without.
Why do we not have another round or two of BRAC? It isn't because we need all the bases we have. But every congressman of both parties is scared it might cut the one in their state.
This isn't Dem vs Rep, it's In Office vs Out of Office. I was there when an AF 4-star had the audacity to say he could make do without a base in NY state. He was very quickly "invited" to have lunch with every congressional member of the NYS delegation and informed of the error of his ways. You couldn't distinguish the most liberal from the most conservative member in that meeting.
Why don't we save some serious $$$ by drastically reassessing the way the services are constructed; what was good in John Paul Jones' time might not actually fit today. But neither party will touch "TRADITION". There are far, far more efficient and effective ways to reorganize DoDS (and other gov't entities) but the current DoD leaders won't propose it and congress wouldn't tolerate it. And it has nothing to do with party affiliation.
I'm surprised some on here haven't proposed DOT only maintain roads in Texas since the rest of the country is superfluous anyway. Make all government support contingent upon owning 4+ guns, a pick-up truck, and rooting for an SEC football team.
And the basic JD BS about "Sequestration was Obama's idea" is just that, BS. Some leaders of BOTH parties were for it as a forcing function because NO ONE would be that myopic, stupid, and delusional to let it actually come to that. How little they underestimated the Wacko Idealogues on both ends of the spectrum.
Again, thanks for putting some sanity on here.
It is so very easy to claim "we can cut waste and save billions", the problem is agreeing upon whose waste to cut.
I find it amazing how the same congressmen who scream about pork vote for the systems DoD buys in their district that the services say they can do without.
Why do we not have another round or two of BRAC? It isn't because we need all the bases we have. But every congressman of both parties is scared it might cut the one in their state.
This isn't Dem vs Rep, it's In Office vs Out of Office. I was there when an AF 4-star had the audacity to say he could make do without a base in NY state. He was very quickly "invited" to have lunch with every congressional member of the NYS delegation and informed of the error of his ways. You couldn't distinguish the most liberal from the most conservative member in that meeting.
Why don't we save some serious $$$ by drastically reassessing the way the services are constructed; what was good in John Paul Jones' time might not actually fit today. But neither party will touch "TRADITION". There are far, far more efficient and effective ways to reorganize DoDS (and other gov't entities) but the current DoD leaders won't propose it and congress wouldn't tolerate it. And it has nothing to do with party affiliation.
I'm surprised some on here haven't proposed DOT only maintain roads in Texas since the rest of the country is superfluous anyway. Make all government support contingent upon owning 4+ guns, a pick-up truck, and rooting for an SEC football team.
And the basic JD BS about "Sequestration was Obama's idea" is just that, BS. Some leaders of BOTH parties were for it as a forcing function because NO ONE would be that myopic, stupid, and delusional to let it actually come to that. How little they underestimated the Wacko Idealogues on both ends of the spectrum.
- phillyintexas
- 12-10-2013, 02:22 PM
Old-T
+1.
Many a plane and many a tank has been built that the Pentagon didn't want. Many of the line items in the DoD budget have nothing to do with the military. They're added to it because only few in Congress will vote against it regardless of what's in it. Its a good place for Congress t put their pork. I've been impacted by BRAC twice in my career and if Congress had acted appropriately there would have been at least one more BRAC by now. They're trying a joint-basing concept in DoD but that has had very little impact since each service still does most all things the old way. What the DoD needs to become is one joint service with air, ground, space, and special operations components. We could remove at least 50% of the HQ Mgt aspects and the associated overhead positions while still be maintaining the same readiness. AND for a change we'd end up buying materials and weapon systems that are truly inter-operable. What a concept an efficient DoD. The end result would be funding left over to better support the troops without breaking the bank.
+1.
Many a plane and many a tank has been built that the Pentagon didn't want. Many of the line items in the DoD budget have nothing to do with the military. They're added to it because only few in Congress will vote against it regardless of what's in it. Its a good place for Congress t put their pork. I've been impacted by BRAC twice in my career and if Congress had acted appropriately there would have been at least one more BRAC by now. They're trying a joint-basing concept in DoD but that has had very little impact since each service still does most all things the old way. What the DoD needs to become is one joint service with air, ground, space, and special operations components. We could remove at least 50% of the HQ Mgt aspects and the associated overhead positions while still be maintaining the same readiness. AND for a change we'd end up buying materials and weapon systems that are truly inter-operable. What a concept an efficient DoD. The end result would be funding left over to better support the troops without breaking the bank.
- CJ7
- 12-10-2013, 02:36 PM
our self proclaimed top .02%er, and military expert JD sure got quite didn't he ?
Gentlemen, thank you for your military service at home and abroad, and clarity on this board .
Salute.
Gentlemen, thank you for your military service at home and abroad, and clarity on this board .
Salute.
- Old-T
- 12-10-2013, 03:28 PM
....They're trying a joint-basing concept in DoD but that has had very little impact since each service still does most all things the old way. What the DoD needs to become is one joint service with air, ground, space, and special operations components. We could remove at least 50% of the HQ Mgt aspects and the associated overhead positions while still be maintaining the same readiness. AND for a change we'd end up buying materials and weapon systems that are truly inter-operable. What a concept an efficient DoD. The end result would be funding left over to better support the troops without breaking the bank. Originally Posted by phillyintexasI agree with most of what you say--and philosophically I agree with all of it. But in today's world you hit upon the key point: inter-operable.
I would probably disagree only on the organization structure. Instead of air, ground, space I suspect it might be better structured around tactical, strategic, logistics, SPECOPS, etc. Either way it should be far more efficient and effective than today.