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

[regulator 0]

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.

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.

John Hayward of Human Events adds:

Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become “means-tested” in the manner of a social program – treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and “avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year,” according to critics.

There will be congressional hearings on the new military health care policies next month. Opposition is building in Congress, and among veterans’ organizations, including the VFW, which has “called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the health care increases.”

Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel - who are not unionized - and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions.

Gertz wrote:

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.

At least one Congressman is standing with the military on this issue.

“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,” said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.

“We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more,” he added.

McKeon will be joined by some 5 million members of 32 military service and veterans groups, according to retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America, who called the plan "a breach of faith."

The Beacon also noted the curious timing of the plan, which is set to begin next year - after the 2012 elections. Critics say this is designed so as not to upset military voters.

It's one more reason Barack Hussein Obama does not deserve to be re-elected in November.

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

[ShcShc11 0]

Oh my GOD!!!!!

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

Oh my GOD!!!!!

Don't worry, that retired colonel will more than make it up with Romney's middle class tax increase -- oops, I guess he gets screwed there too.

How old is that retired colonel with a family (which usually implies dependent children)? Maybe he shouldn't be able to get retirement benefits at all until he hits 62, or full benefits until 66,67 whatever. If he has his years in, he should definitely get retirement benefits -- but only after the age that social security kicks in. He shouldn't have to work another 10 years, but he shouldn't collect in the meanwhile.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Oh my GOD!!!!!

Since you are canadian and probably never served in the US military you dont know shit about what these people are going through. I am ex military and my nephew is in the Navy and my neice is married to an army ranger. While it doesnt shock me that you would make a total asshat comment like the one above it also wouldnt suprise me if you like stroking your tiny wee wee to pictures of obama. Let me know when you have something relevant to say.

[rehmwa 2]

So what we have is just one group that wants to be excepted from ObamaCare so they can keep their own arrangement.

It's pretty funny - the supporters of ObamaCare think it's the greatest thing of all time - for everyone else.

I really think that those that want this program fall into three groups:

1 - those that don't have their own policy and want someone else to pay
2 - those that want to push the political agenda and fully expect to be excepted from the program because they already have a sweeter deal than most
3 - sheep


I think these horrible programs and initiatives are done that way on purpose, just so politicians can extend their influence under the ability to grant exceptions.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Since you are canadian and probably never served in the US military you dont know shit about what these people are going through.

I am sorry, but where they forced to join?

Quote

also wouldnt suprise me if you like stroking your tiny wee wee to pictures of obama.

Probably just as much as you do stroking yours to pictures of guys in uniform.

On a more serious note. I understand that many in the US see the military as something holy and untouchable. In many other parts of th world, that is just simply not so. In many other parts of the world, patriotism isn't judged simply by support for the military.

Benefits are part of an employment contract. Employment contracts change over time. They do so in the private sector, and do so, to generally a far lower extent, in the public sector.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

and do so, to generally a far lower extent, in the public sector.

Just not in the "union" sector

(Ok, ok...I know that's not true)

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[regulator 0]

I am sorry, but where they forced to join?


When exactly was the last time Canada had a draft for military?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1944

Are you going to tie this into a point?

[livendive 8]

Oddly enough, there are contracts that state what union employees will pay for healthcare coverage. Those numbers are frequently modifed during negotiations at contract renewal time.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[JerryBaumchen 1,473]

Hi Sky,

Quote

Employment contracts change over time.

I am a retired US federal employee. My medical benefits took a rather 'drastic' change this year.

Can I live with it? Sure.

Would I like to have it as it was? Sure

C'est la vie,

JerryBaumchen