• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

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

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Marcus

I Agree, Go Cavs
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
18,329
Reaction score
27,446
Points
135
http://m.examiner.com/conservative-...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.

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.

Count me into the group that's going to be fucking livid if this passes. I'm already having a hard enough time paying my bills without my health insurance rates getting jacked the fuck up by the morons in DC.
 
Unions vote en masse for Democrats, and donate millions every year to their campaign coffers. The military...doesn't. So, that's that.
 
Unions vote en masse for Democrats, and donate millions every year to their campaign coffers. The military...doesn't. So, that's that.

Wish that made it right.
 
It's sad really... if the whole notion of government dependency didn't exist what exactly would the Democrat party platform consist of?
 
It's sad really... if the whole notion of government dependency didn't exist what exactly would the Democrat party platform consist of?

Well, right now their platform consists of 1) encouraging government dependancy, and 2) continuing government dependancy. So, if government dependancy didn't exist, I guess their platform would only consist of the former.
 
This article is filled with a lot of exaggeration. I just read the AF Times article on the Tricare hikes last week and it's not that bad. I'll try and track down the article to show the actual numbers...don't see it in our common area anymore.

The last line of the article clearly shows the author's bias.

**EDIT**

Tracked down the chart. Can be viewed here.

For reference here is a military pay chart for 2012. For simplicity sake, military retirement works like this: you can retire at 20 years and receive half your pay. For each year you work over 20, you receive 2.5% on top of that 50% (i.e. work 25 years, receive 62.5% of your base pay as retirement). By 20 years, most people in the AF have made either E-7 or E-8, while most officers have made either O-5 or O-6.
 
Last edited:
This article is filled with a lot of exaggeration. I just read the AF Times article on the Tricare hikes last week and it's not that bad. I'll try and track down the article to show the actual numbers...don't see it in our common area anymore.

The last line of the article clearly shows the author's bias.

With or without exaggeration, though, it's a fucking crime to increase costs to our military families while allowing the unions to skate. Military families shouldn't really have to pay anything as far as I'm concerned, and the fact that we're set to INCREASE their costs is bullshit.
 
This article is filled with a lot of exaggeration. I just read the AF Times article on the Tricare hikes last week and it's not that bad. I'll try and track down the article to show the actual numbers...don't see it in our common area anymore.

The last line of the article clearly shows the author's bias.

**EDIT**

Tracked down the chart. Can be viewed here.

For reference here is a military pay chart for 2012. For simplicity sake, military retirement works like this: you can retire at 20 years and receive half your pay. For each year you work over 20, you receive 2.5% on top of that 50% (i.e. work 25 years, receive 62.5% of your base pay as retirement). By 20 years, most people in the AF have made either E-7 or E-8, while most officers have made either O-5 or O-6.

Not as bad if that chart's accurate. Still sucks that we are the ones that end up paying because the government can't get their shit straight.
 
With or without exaggeration, though, it's a fucking crime to increase costs to our military families while allowing the unions to skate. Military families shouldn't really have to pay anything as far as I'm concerned, and the fact that we're set to INCREASE their costs is bullshit.

Someone who retires today as an O-5 after 20 years will be making $4,100/month or $49,200/year at the age of 42 (20 years after college graduation). They'll pay about 4% of their annual salary for health care. The average family paid $13,375 for health care in 2009 and I'd imagine it's closer to $15k annually now.

An E-7 retiring at 20 years will be making $2,128/month or $25,536/year at the age of 37 or 38 (20 years after enlistment). They'll pay about 6% of their annual salary for health care.

Most people who retire from the military don't "retire", either. It usually leads into a high-paying job as a CIVILIAN DEFENSE WORKER or a government contractor.

Again, article makes it out to be way worse than it actually is.
 
If you take a look at funding for Obama's Campaign from 2008 and now in 2012, you will see that financial union support has been pulled for the most part, especially when compared to big financial institutions and universities/higher education.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/obama-campaign-fundraising_n_901569.html

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638


Whenever people want to start a thread that point a finger at Goldman Sachs for trying to buy the presidency, I'm all aboard with Obama-bashing!
 
Someone who retires today as an O-5 after 20 years will be making $4,100/month or $49,200/year at the age of 42 (20 years after college graduation). They'll pay about 4% of their annual salary for health care. The average family paid $13,375 for health care in 2009 and I'd imagine it's closer to $15k annually now.

An E-7 retiring at 20 years will be making $2,128/month or $25,536/year at the age of 37 or 38 (20 years after enlistment). They'll pay about 6% of their annual salary for health care.

Most people who retire from the military don't "retire", either. It usually leads into a high-paying job as a CIVILIAN DEFENSE WORKER or a government contractor.

Again, article makes it out to be way worse than it actually is.

Don't come into this thread and bring these silly "facts" and "logic"...down with Obama!
 
It's sad really... if the whole notion of government dependency didn't exist what exactly would the Democrat party platform consist of?

If it government assistance didn't exist, what would we have done when the economy tanked? I guess when you don't experience it, it's easy to paint it broadly as government dependency.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top