Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers

[Go Skins]

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers

 

In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers.

 

The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon.

Gertz added:

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.

Not everybody is happy with the plan, however.

 

Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 - 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums "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," Gertz wrote.

 

Active duty military personnel would also see an increased cost for pharmaceuticals, and the incentive to use less expensive generic drugs would be gone.

 

Health benefits has long been a prime reason many stay in the military - but some in the Pentagon fear the new rules will hamper recruitment and retention.

 

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” one aide said.

[|Numbers|]

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-cut-medical-benefits-for-active-retired-military-not-union-workers

 

In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers.

 

The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon.

Gertz added:

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.

Not everybody is happy with the plan, however.

 

Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 - 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums "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," Gertz wrote.

 

Active duty military personnel would also see an increased cost for pharmaceuticals, and the incentive to use less expensive generic drugs would be gone.

 

Health benefits has long been a prime reason many stay in the military - but some in the Pentagon fear the new rules will hamper recruitment and retention.

 

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” one aide said.

 

This is one of those things that will never come to pass.  This has been discussed in the political circles since before Obama came in office.  What I don't understand is that after serving for 20 plus years in the military and giving up some of the best years of our lives in the service of our country, we are now being considered for a hike in insurance premiums.  While considered miniscule by civilian standards, it is a benefit to offset what the wear and tear the military has placed upon their bodies and financial well being.

 

IF this comes into being, I will drop Tricare completely.  Fortunately, I have alternate health insurance that will more than cover what benefits Tricare provides.  Not all people will be able to do the same and as a result the active duty and retired veterans families will be the ones who suffer the consequences of a bad idea on the part of the political machine.  This will hamper recruitment and retention but will not affect it to a drastic extent.  People need a job and are willing to take less just to be able to food on the table.  It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth on after 20 plus years of service the government is even considering this as an option.  Consider cutting their pay, retirement (which is a whole lot less than 20 years), etc... and see how many people want to be in politics.

 

Sorry GoSkins, this is a sore subject for me and did not mean to bring out my soapbox.

[Go Skins]

Numbers, my dad was in the Navy for 20 years and retired, so I get your rant.  I know he doesn't use Tricare anymore, but I am sure if he was, he would be just as upset as you are.  I also know a few people that could be effected by this if it comes to pass.

 

I do not follow politics that close, but I find links and post them on here because I think some of y'all are pretty educational. I vote every November as well.

 

I could be off base about this, but why is Obama looking to cut defense spending so much instead of looking at other areas of the government?  The sequestration hasn't made a difference traffic wise in DC, and this coming from a resident of 30 years.  I am sure there are other things in the government that could be cut, maybe eliminated, instead of cutting one of the few things that makes this country great, and that is having a military, a good one at that. 

[Jamie_B]

I havent looked too deeply at this but is it Obama that made this cut or is it that the Pentagon doesnt want to cut their pet projects so this gets cut instead?

 

 

Skins, military spending as a percentage of the budget is far far greater than most everything else.

[|kennethmw|]

I havent looked too deeply at this but is it Obama that made this cut or is it that the Pentagon doesnt want to cut their pet projects so this gets cut instead?

 

 

Skins, military spending as a percentage of the budget is far far greater than most everything else.

 

Heck,Jamie, you know everything we complain about is done by the Black fella in the White House! 

[Jamie_B]

 

Heck,Jamie, you know everything we complain about is done by the Black fella in the White House! 

 

 

:)

[AmishBengalFan]

I havent looked too deeply at this but is it Obama that made this cut or is it that the Pentagon doesnt want to cut their pet projects so this gets cut instead?

 

 

Skins, military spending as a percentage of the budget is far far greater than most everything else.

 

Good thing then that other ARE looking deeply into this, then perhaps folks wouldn't have to worry about uncomfortable facts making them look foolish:

 

 

DoD is one-fifth of the overall budget, and is less than 1/3 of the combined Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and "Discretionary" totals.  In no sense is Defense spending "far, far" greater.

 

Furthermore, due to sequestration, DoD is paying twice what the rest of the government is.  DoD's reduction is $76.9 Billion, while everybody else pays a total of $38.4 Billion.  (Source: CBO, "Projection of Sequester and Budget Control Act Caps", February 2013).

 

One-fifth of the government is paying two-thirds of the bill for the largesse that Obama and the previous Congress has imposed on our children and grandchildren.

 

Darn those pesky facts!

[|Bunghole|]

I have a real problem with this if it's true. The shitty pay and often deadly consequences of military service are offset in a sense by dedication in the form of retirement pay and benefits for 20-30+ year veterans. I haven't spoken with my old man, whom retired in 1999 as a major general after 36 years of service in the Corps of Engineers, but goddamn it if this is true. My parents are retired and while they are in no way hurting for money due to my Dad's careful and long term investments over the years (plus his retirement pay as an O-8), he deserves free medical care for the rest of his life, as does my Mom for having to put up with the type of marriage a long term military career brings. 

 

What the Pentagon (and by proxy, Congress) really NEED to do is cut weapons spending. We spend more money on our military than any other country and it isn't close. Our military budget could feed every third world nation on the planet. We need to quit worrying about regional powers like China, who's economy is almost completely dependent upon our consumerism, and focus on our nation, it's people and it's infrastructure. I don't have a problem with the idea of universal health care because a government's primary job IMO is the well-being of it's citizens, but Obamacare is the wrong way to go about it from what I can gather. We should raise taxes a little to fund healthcare and slash the shit out of the military budget to fund it. Of course there are cuts that can be made elsewhere as the US government is a wellspring of wasted spending. As long as it isn't something that effects the health or education of our citizens, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, special interests and local consituencies continue to influence politicians more interested in political self-preservation that what is best for America as a whole.

 

The beat goes on. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. It's pretty fucking depressing.

[Jamie_B]

 

 

Good thing then that other ARE looking deeply into this, then perhaps folks wouldn't have to worry about uncomfortable facts making them look foolish:

 

 

DoD is one-fifth of the overall budget, and is less than 1/3 of the combined Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and "Discretionary" totals.  In no sense is Defense spending "far, far" greater.

 

Furthermore, due to sequestration, DoD is paying twice what the rest of the government is.  DoD's reduction is $76.9 Billion, while everybody else pays a total of $38.4 Billion.  (Source: CBO, "Projection of Sequester and Budget Control Act Caps", February 2013).

 

One-fifth of the government is paying two-thirds of the bill for the largesse that Obama and the previous Congress has imposed on our children and grandchildren.

 

Darn those pesky facts!

 

 

 

I was actually talking about the specifics of this bill as what I haven't looked into, but I digress.

 

Anyway, facts are pesky things....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

[AmishBengalFan]

 

 

I was actually talking about the specifics of this bill as what I haven't looked into, but I digress.

 

Anyway, facts are pesky things....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

 

QFT

 

That article confirms my points and denies yours:

- DoD is only 1/5th of the overall budget

- Combined Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and "Discretionary" spending is more than THREE times DoD spending.
- DoD's sequestration hit is TWICE what the entire rest of the government is paying.

 

I know you don't do much research, but do you even read your own posts?

 

BTW - I love having you on this board. :hug: It's a laugh a minute!

[Jamie_B]

 

QFT

 

That article confirms my points and denies yours:

- DoD is only 1/5th of the overall budget

- Combined Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and "Discretionary" spending is more than THREE times DoD spending.
- DoD's sequestration hit is TWICE what the entire rest of the government is paying.

 

I know you don't do much research, but do you even read your own posts?

 

BTW - I love having you on this board. :hug: It's a laugh a minute!

 

 

Fair enough in medicare and social security are relativly equal to the DOD budget.

 

Now lets talk about the thing in the link I posted here...

 

 

 

Of these I would label China, Russia, Saudia Arabia as the only not compltely friendly countries to us. So if you so kindly could tell me why we need to be spending that much keeping in mind that most of the rest of this list are our allies. And even then China, Russia, and the Saudi's are not completely unfriendly to us, while I will grant they give good reason not to completely trust them. So if you could kindly tell me exactly why the need to spend more than all of them combines, and please keep your military contractor bias out of it...

 

I would argue of course medicare and social security are a need, I would argue the military is a need as well, I'm just not sure it's as great of a need as one might think.

 

Futher getting back to my original argument, was this cut done by Obama or recommended by the Pentagon or was it Congress? Could they not better use the money they waste on unneeded pet projects?

 

 

 

So yes, time lacking I made a lazy argument, but it was an argument that I'm sure you really knew what I was talking about, but hey if you want to throw your cute little quips go right ahead, they don't mean much in the grand scheme of things do they?

[AmishBengalFan]

and please keep your military contractor bias out of it...

 

Ad hominem, and untrue.  I am employed by the US Navy.

[Jamie_B]

 

Ad hominem, and untrue.  I am employed by the US Navy.

 

 

GS?

[|kennethmw|]

Here's the thing that get's me here.  They are not losing benefits, they just have to pay more for those benefits.

 

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

 

My wife and I pay 223 bi-weekly for just the two of us, or $5798 a year.  I feel so sorry that they will now have to pay a third of what I pay as opposed to a 10th.

[AmishBengalFan]

 

 

GS?

 

Yes.  13.

 

 

And I am not disagreeing that there are lots of places to cut budgets - hell, I've been an advocate of that for a long time.  I just don't take the approach of demonizing the DoD like some do, and as I interpreted you to be doing.  There's pork in the DoD budget, there's pork in the budget of ALL of the Cabinet departments, there's pork in the budget of all three branches of government.

 

Budgets are set by Congress.  In the past, when the Executive Branch has refused to execute (spend) to the levels Congress prescribed, Congress made the spending compulsory.  DoD is obligated to spend to the levels Congress has set for them.  So I would start at the source - your Congressman - and work to change the financial mess that they have created in a smart method, rather than the "across the board cut" method that Sequestration introduced.

 

Deep down, I think you're saying the same thing as me.  I just think you're coming across as more reactionary and willing to villify the DoD.

[AmishBengalFan]

Here's the thing that get's me here.  They are not losing benefits, they just have to pay more for those benefits.

 

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

 

My wife and I pay 223 bi-weekly for just the two of us, or $5798 a year.  I feel so sorry that they will now have to pay a third of what I pay as opposed to a 10th.

 

I think you're missing the big picture.  Health benefits for active duty and retired military are a part of the overall compensation package.  They are generally underpaid, are frequently shot at, and are at a significantly higher risk than Joe Sixpack of having long-term career-related illnesses and/or missing body parts.  Comparing what they pay to what you pay may seem like a one-for-one comparison, but in reality they are two VERY different things.

[Jamie_B]

 

Yes.  13.

 

 

And I am not disagreeing that there are lots of places to cut budgets - hell, I've been an advocate of that for a long time.  I just don't take the approach of demonizing the DoD like some do, and as I interpreted you to be doing.  There's pork in the DoD budget, there's pork in the budget of ALL of the Cabinet departments, there's pork in the budget of all three branches of government.

 

Budgets are set by Congress.  In the past, when the Executive Branch has refused to execute (spend) to the levels Congress prescribed, Congress made the spending compulsory.  DoD is obligated to spend to the levels Congress has set for them.  So I would start at the source - your Congressman - and work to change the financial mess that they have created in a smart method, rather than the "across the board cut" method that Sequestration introduced.

 

Deep down, I think you're saying the same thing as me.  I just think you're coming across as more reactionary and willing to villify the DoD.

 

 

There is a Navy base in Ohio? :blink:

 

Not so much villify the DoD, Dad was Army and I spent most of my adult life as one of those contractors (still contract but to a different department now), so you were incorrect in saying I was being ad hominem, moreso saying that bias exists, either way I had thought you were also a contractor. My mistake.

 

Not so much villifying the DoD as I am the priorites in the budget itself.

[|kennethmw|]

 

I think you're missing the big picture.  Health benefits for active duty and retired military are a part of the overall compensation package.  They are generally underpaid, are frequently shot at, and are at a significantly higher risk than Joe Sixpack of having long-term career-related illnesses and/or missing body parts.  Comparing what they pay to what you pay may seem like a one-for-one comparison, but in reality they are two VERY different things.

 

Amish, I don't mind them paying less than I pay.  However, to act like paying 1/3 of what I pay is this major problem is what I have a problem with. 

[scharm]

 

I could be off base about this, but why is Obama looking to cut defense spending so much instead of looking at other areas of the government?  The sequestration hasn't made a difference traffic wise in DC, and this coming from a resident of 30 years.  I am sure there are other things in the government that could be cut, maybe eliminated, instead of cutting one of the few things that makes this country great, and that is having a military, a good one at that. 

 

Most people beat up on the poor etc.   Cut welfare, cut welfare!   There is more likely alot of waste in public assistance.   However,  if you got it working as efficiently as possible and cut the waste and benefits it's not going to make up the difference for the budget issues this country faces.

 

Much the same you just can't raise taxes to cure it either.  Eventhough people are going to beat up on the rich and corporations.    

 

Unfortunately,  everything has to be on the table.  

 

The only problem I see is the suggestion that union benefits aren't on the table.   Why?  Don't want to piss off your poltical funding. 

[scharm]

Here's the thing that get's me here.  They are not losing benefits, they just have to pay more for those benefits.

 

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

 

My wife and I pay 223 bi-weekly for just the two of us, or $5798 a year.  I feel so sorry that they will now have to pay a third of what I pay as opposed to a 10th.

 

yep.   I'd love to give it to them for free.   That isn't realistic.   A bunch of Americans have been forced into paying more for health care.

[AmishBengalFan]

 

 

There is a Navy base in Ohio? :blink:

 

Not so much villify the DoD, Dad was Army and I spent most of my adult life as one of those contractors (still contract but to a different department now), so you were incorrect in saying I was being ad hominem, moreso saying that bias exists, either way I had thought you were also a contractor. My mistake.

 

Not so much villifying the DoD as I am the priorites in the budget itself.

 

NSWC (Naval Surface Warfare Center) Crane, Indiana.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Surface_Warfare_Center_Crane_Division

 

It's the third largest naval installation in the world, 103 square miles smack-dab in the middle of the bovine wilds of south-central Indiana, approx 30 miles SW of Bloomington.

[Jamie_B]

That's right I keep forgetting your in IN not OH

[scharm]

There's the OHIO River militia.  

[AmishBengalFan]

That's right I keep forgetting your in IN not OH

 

It's okay.  Indiana's a lot like Ohio... except that our basketball teams are better.

[Homer_Rice]

 

NSWC (Naval Surface Warfare Center) Crane, Indiana.

Is there a big ammo dump in the vicinity? About a decade ago I helped a friend (US Army) relocate and I think it's the same place. Nice part of the state, but it seemed a little remote to me.