Forgive me if this is already posted:

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

Quote:

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.

But I'm sure congress still gets a full ride for life after one term.

Quote:

. . . eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.

Ignoring the issue of whether the entire proposal is fair, etc., etc., I cannot figure out how this part makes any sense whatsoever.

Quote:

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.

hahahahahaha.

Bull****. The goal is to divert money to pay for 'free' healthcare for zombies.

Quote:

while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched.

They outta have to pay more too! Why not? What is the reason? hmmmm....

because democrats won't touch a union, that's why.

Where's Pika? I would bet she has an opinion on this.

Quote:

Bull****. The goal is to divert money to pay for 'free' healthcare for zombies.

Yep, Take from those who did and give to those who didn't. Sheesh!

I have an opinion....

Let's hear it, Karl. Or is it a ticker?

I have an opinion also. since i'm already on several list kept by nappy, here it is: **** YOU WITH A RUSTY CHAIN SAW! I sacrificed most of my life and all of my productive adult life serving this country, never bitching about what I had to do for **** pay. Now these ****s want to not just reduce the few ****ty benifits I get but now i get to PAY for the privledge of getting ****ed over some more. Lets see, white-check, vet-check, armed-check, christian-check, now approaching disgruntled to the point where no politician wants people they previously wanted to kill for them. They should be able to figure that out.

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/02/27....

Obama Reveals Beginnings of Unionizing Plan for American Military?

by Ulsterman on February 27, 2012

Months ago, a longtime Wall Street Insider indicated there was a push within the Obama administration for unionization of the American military. Has that move now been revealed?

Can you imagine attempting to unionize our American military? And for such a consideration to be made by an administration…it is appalling how dangerous the mindset of the Obama people has become. Almost as appalling as how many of us didn’t see it all coming our way.

… As I did say – the administration wants to unionize the American military. All of it. They apparently, if what this gentleman said is to be believed,…they wish to see the soldiers “justly represented”. That was the term that was repeated to me by more than one source. It had…the conversation had originated as one about unionizing Wall Street workers and then the information about the military – the actual plan for unionizing the military came out.
-WALL STREET INSIDER: President Obama’s Plan to Unionize the American Military

http://theulstermanreport.com/2011/12/17....

Today we see a troubling report of plans by the Obama administration to force acting and retired military service personnel and their families to pay higher insurance costs associated with the Obama healthcare plan – a plan that would protect current rates for unionized civilian defense workers.

Is this a case of the Obama White House attempting to push the American military into wanting to be unionized so as to be protected from such seemingly randam and harsh increases to their cost of living – the kind of protection the unions would be quite happy to promise them? Why else would President Barack Obama make such a seemingly foolish and potentially damaging political move as this?

Excerpt from the Washington Free Beacon report:

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.

…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.

_________________

Why would a Commander in Chief during an election year push for potential increases of over 300% in military health care costs? Surely there is an alternative motive at play here – and our Wall Street Insider might have been exactly right when they issued their warning that the Obama administration was looking at ways of unionizing the American military.

I want to point something out.

Quote:

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

Via OPM, one can find the health insurance rates for Federal Civilians or as the article calls them "unionized civilian defense workers" (really a union in name only). One can tally up the yearly rates for employees with a family.

I tallied up 17 fee-for-service and 13 HMO plans (in California), and will share results in (min, avg, max) form.

For the 17 fee-for-service plans it's ($2400, $3871, $7920).
For the 13 HMOs (in California) it's ($2232, $5843, $15012 -- California Health Net WTF!).
Excluding HealthNet of California its ($2232, $4284, $8184).

To "spin" the article in inflammatory terms we could say that the retired US Army colonel is paying 8-9x less for health care than the average Federal Employee (and its not rocket science to think that the non-Federal employee is paying 2x more for health care).

If anyone should be up in arms over the disparity of treatment, it should be the Federal Employees and their unions... actually it's more plausible that the unions have pointed out that the military pays significantly less than Federal employees.

... and of course everyone gets to blame Obama when these types of things are wholly within the realm of Congress... well yes, he did put this proposal out as a way to reduce the national deficit (and it's hilarious because our liabilities are something like $100T+' so when they claim to save $4T or $10T through some lame proposal like this it's really just peanuts...). Even if they came up with $20T in "savings" it would not be enough!

Full disclosure: I am a Federal Employee, but putting this information out there because I think the article is ridiculously slanted to make it seem like Federal Employees also pay such a low yearly premium for health insurance. It would be outrageous if the was the case.

Pika: Does your son have an opinion on all of this?

Chillpariah -

Are all of the amounts you cited paid for by the workers? If so, how much does the gov't pay on top of that?

If the numbers are the total costs, what is the worker/gov't split of the costs?

I guess Oblama is getting the vote out for ...RON PAUL.

Quote:

Now these ****s want to not just reduce the few ****ty benifits (sic) I get but now I get to PAY for the privledge (sic) of getting ****ed over some more.

Unfortunately, ALL entitlements are eventually going to get cut. They just got to you first. Welcome to the future, and expect much more of this, as we are FORCED to balance the budget.

Quote:

Lets see, white-check, vet-check, armed-check, christian-check, now approaching disgruntled to the point where no politician wants people they previously wanted to kill for them. They should be able to figure that out.

A relative of mine makes this threat a lot. So give me my ENTITLEMENT or I am going to shoot the place up? #SMH. I am sympathetic, I really am, but this is where you guys lose my support.

The simple, logical truth here (and Karl has said as much many times previously) is that not everyone can get theirs. Every group of people claiming to have a deserved right to tax dollars, whether veterans, the poor, minorities, single mothers, etc. can make equally-heartfelt emotional pleas for why they deserve a handout, but that doesn't change the math. The ship is sinking because of selfish, greedy people who don't have any concept of personal responsibility. I thank all veterans for their service, but we have a volunteer military in this country. Folks who join up need to do so completely understanding what the realities are: you are tools of the power elite. They don't really care about you so why enable their sociopathic behavior?

$2,400 a year for family coverage is ridiculously LOW.

That would cost us $8,000 here (teacher, public).

I doubt that anyone in the private sector is paying only $240/mo for family around here. I remember it was more than that when I worked for a private company back in 2002. (250 employees)

It was also up to $280 a month in Georgia for teachers when we left. Still an excellent deal for the coverage you received (in this screwed up market...)

Quote:

The simple, logical truth here (and Karl has said as much many times previously) is that not everyone can get theirs. Every group of people claiming to have a deserved right to tax dollars, whether veterans, the poor, minorities, single mothers, etc. can make equally-heartfelt emotional pleas for why they deserve a handout, but that doesn't change the math. The ship is sinking because of selfish, greedy people who don't have any concept of personal responsibility. I thank all veterans for their service, but we have a volunteer military in this country.

Truth. As I said, I am sympathetic, but when you threaten to shoot up the place because you won't get your entitlements, then you are IMO no better than the welfare queen who refuses to get a job. Now, I do think the state SHOULD help the weak and poor among us, but many people who collect these benefits can ABSOLUTELY operate perfectly without it. It is indeed a SELFISH and DEPRAVED attitude. And I will not endorse it.

Quote:

Welcome to the future, and expect much more of this, as we are FORCED to balance the budget.

Howsabout we first cut Davis-Bacon and all union preferential treatment by the fedgov, hit up civilian employees, appointees and electeds, prosecute and seize assets from fraudulent bank****s, close out all federal departments and orgs whose jobs are better left to the states, let's do all of that first BEFORE going after the veterans?

Otis, everybody gets*****ed when their ox gets gored. Veterans are going to be in-line for more cuts as time rolls on. Accept it or find somewhere else to place your lot. Because this IS the future and it IS going to happen. It's a crap sandwich and everybody affected is going to have to take a bite. Be you civilian or veteran. I am guessing you are a vet. Thank you for your service, but realize you are about to get screwed some more.

The attempt to deflect the pain onto someone else so that you can get yours EXACTLY typifies the destructive attitude I mentioned above.

There's good news and bad news.

The good news is that this hit is less than most other people are taking NOW.

The bad news is that this is just the beginning. Those who BELIEVE in the myth of "government health care" when in retirement, even if their job was serving in the military, are in for a rude surprise.

Is it a violation of what you were promised? Yep. And it will be for every other retired person (e.g. Medicare) as well.

Here's what you will need to get ready:



And this for your teeth:



Here it comes...

Exactly Gen, veiled threats and vitriol notwithstanding.

Quote:

The attempt to deflect the pain onto someone else so that you can get yours EXACTLY typifies the destructive attitude I mentioned above.

It's not about deflecting pain, it's about prioritizing it. One does not cut muscle until the fat is gone, and the FedGov is all about protecting its piggies fat at the expense of the horse's muscle.

First of all, I'm clearly biased. Having a son who spent 13 months taking direct fire from the 3rd world cretins in Afghanistan, my POV is obviously colored by this.

Secondly, we don't have any ****ing money for 'entitlements.' Period. (Mind you, I don't think that healthcare for those who have been injured in the line of duty due only to their voluntary service to their country should be considered an 'entitlement' - I think it should be just and equitable compensation.)

However, here's the problem: Absent any honest discussion amongst the governed and the government about the above lack of revenue, we are going to get what those in DC think they can get away with without losing votes and it has usually meant our serving military and those retired veterans take it up the ass. Why? Because they suffer quietly AND because it is only about 10-12% of the overall population that ever serves in the military. They're an easy target. Someone above asked what my son thought about this? He doesn't. He does his job. End of story. He volunteered to defend his country - he'll do that no matter how badly his country screws him.

As for the rest of it, where clearly and with intent and purpose, the administration is going to leave 'unionized' benefit recipients alone....**** YOU, YOU ****ING COCKSUCKING PANDERING CRONY DICKHEAD OBAMA. DIAFF!