So much for TriCare, so much for Service

[Smuckatelli]

This is set to happen after 2013, after the elections.....

By squeezing service members and veterans out of Tricare and into ObamaCare through significantly higher Tricare premiums, the Obama Administration believes it can pinch $1.8 billion from Tricare in fiscal 2013 and $12.9 billion by 2017.

By comparison, Mr. Obama spent $20.5 billion on his Department of Energy green energy grants and loans program, 80 percent of which went to companies owned or tied to Mr. Obama's top fundraisers.
http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/02/28/obama-to-force-military-into-obamacare-exchanges-and-slash-healthcare-benefits/

[Steelgrave]

This is set to happen after 2013, after the elections.....

By squeezing service members and veterans out of Tricare and into ObamaCare through significantly higher Tricare premiums, the Obama Administration believes it can pinch $1.8 billion from Tricare in fiscal 2013 and $12.9 billion by 2017.

By comparison, Mr. Obama spent $20.5 billion on his Department of Energy green energy grants and loans program, 80 percent of which went to companies owned or tied to Mr. Obama's top fundraisers.
http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/02/28/obama-to-force-military-into-obamacare-exchanges-and-slash-healthcare-benefits/

What do you expect from a socialist who never served and has friends to pay off with political favors? Just today Tricare denied my wife (who served 25 years in uniform...all while Obama was "organizing communities"!) a prescription medicine that she has been taking for three years. Now, they "no longer cover" it. I'm furious. And because of diabetes and another health issue, I was seeing an offbase Dr. every three months, a guy who took great care of me. We made the mistake of moving too close to a base and I now have to see an on-base physician, my visits are cut in half and my very overworked new Dr. seldom remembers my issues. Guess the military is disposable to this administration. God spare us another four years from this travesty of a President.

[son_of_montfort]

Anyone have a less obviously biased report on this (biggovernment.com, for shame Smuck, for shame)? I'd like to read up on what is going on here.

[son_of_montfort]

Ok, is this the same thing?

Budget request includes TRICARE cut, military retirement details:
http://www.govexec.com/defense/2012/02/budget-request-includes-tricare-cut-military-retirement-details/41193/

But this sounds like the DoD is the one who requested these cuts and that the numbers given by Smuck's article are pulled out of thin air. Also Steel, the raise in prices and change in service you are seeing seems to have very little to do with Obama (whose budget plan for Tricare has not been implemented) but was spearheaded by the DoD itself last year (in an effort to cut costs of this cost-heavy program). I guess I'm confused at the attribution to Obama. Information on this whole thing is a bit hard to come by on the web. Clearly you all have a different take. Where are you getting that? Lay it out for me - as a civvie, this is not an issue I normally follow.

Not that it makes any difference, but the Tricare coverage and cost looks way better than most private sector plans. Where is the catch?

[Steelgrave]

SoM, I'm looking for other sources as well, but this is NOT what the DoD requested, not by a long shot. It has been known that there would be some increases for medical, but this goes way beyond just increasing costs. Yes, military healthcare is generally decent and the price is a bargain in one sense. But the other sense is that our military members are literally in harms way at any moment, have to move cross country and sometimes cross continent at the desire of the government, and families are often separated from loved ones for long periods of time. With 12 hours notice, my wife found herself and her unit driving across country to New Orleans, where she ended up digging bodies out of Katrina's aftermath. She was there for six weeks, sleeping in a tent with her troops.  I gave up a full partnership with an upstart gaming company which is still in existence today,  because the DoD switched my wife's transfer orders at the very last minute from one coast to the other. I have a friend who is a Lt. Colonel in a critical job who has been away from his family for most of four years now and another who just came back from his fourth tour in the 'Stan. Civilians don't have to do that, and if they do, the compensation is much greater.

The benefit for 20 years of active and honorable service is decent. A respectable retirement and low cost medical care is the promise. Both have been under attack from this administration. And to even consider lumping military members, active or retired, into the general pool of health care in order to keep his pet project afloat is to deny the difference in sacrifice that military members make and to essentially lie to them about their benefits. Shame on the SoB's who make these decisions and never bothered to wear the uniform.

[Steelgrave]

If you google Bierbart, you might notice that at one time he worked for Bloomberg.

Here's another site: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-thanks-military-tripling-tricare-premiums-235100402.html

[Smuckatelli]

Anyone have a less obviously biased report on this (biggovernment.com, for shame Smuck, for shame)? I'd like to read up on what is going on here.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/barack-obama-health-care-hikes-hit-military-spare-unions-vets-vow-fight

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49819

[Smuckatelli]

the numbers given by Smuck's article are pulled out of thin air.

Here's the numbers:

http://www.military.com/benefits/content/tricare/retiree/proposed-tricare-fee-changes.html

Not that it makes any difference, but the Tricare coverage and cost looks way better than most private sector plans. Where is the catch?

Writing a check payable to the United States of America for an amount "up to and including my life"

That's the catch.

[LongBlade]

Writing a check payable to the United States of America for an amount "up to and including my life"

That's the catch.

For 20 years.

[Smuckatelli]

Anyone have a less obviously biased report on this (biggovernment.com, for shame Smuck, for shame)? I'd like to read up on what is going on here.

SoM, you know there is no such thing as non-biased reporting with today's media. You won't find anything on this in media organizations that support Obamacare.

[son_of_montfort]

^ Smuck... there is a difference between unbiased media and op-ed, which was what that Biggovernment.com piece was.

I'm still confused Steelgrave, the changes you have experienced could not possibly be from this particular Obama initiative, as it hasn't gone through (it was only a proposal). The DoD did some cuts, according to that article.

Not that I'm trying to be contentious here, but all three of you were fairly vocal about the need for overall government cuts last August. What did you expect, that the programs you didn't like would get cut but your programs would stay untouched?

I'm not really wanting to get into it, because I'm a little on edge about this conversation (you know, talking about cutting the military and veterans benefits with veterans). When my programs, the Fulbright Research Grant, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Stafford Loan Subsidies were on the chopping block, I remember the general lauding (not necessarily by people here, but by Conservatives in general) for the cutting of "liberal" academia. These programs are crucial to my profession.

The hew and cry was for major government spending cuts. It can't only target one side or one sector. That mention of Obama's green initiative money was out-of-place, as it predated the drive for spending cuts. The DoD has had financial difficulties, what is the best solution? More government money? Pay and raise cuts? Do you have a better idea of how to make this money up?

[LongBlade]

Not that I'm trying to be contentious here, but all three of you were fairly vocal about the need for overall government cuts last August. What did you expect, that the problems you didn't like would get cut but your programs would stay untouched?

At the risk of putting a dog into a fight I don't need to, I'm going to do so anyway.

I think it has to do with the context.

These cuts aren't due to budget cuts. On the contrary, they're part of a restructuring of healthcare designed to both bloat the budget and overextend government intrusion into the industry.

If (big if) these cuts had be along the lines of "We're cutting all government spending by 20%" then you would have a legitimate argument that suggests they support budget cuts only if it doesn't affect them.

Not that you might win that argument. Some would posit that putting your life on the line for Uncle Sam for 20 years in exchange for the promise of health care until retirement isn't that much of a bargain.

But at least you'd have a line of reasoning upon which to base your point of view.

Instead this is about Obamacare destroying a perfectly good insurance program at the expense of veterans. It's got nothing to do with budget cuts and everything to do with not reading the fcuking bill before the law was passed (at the very minimum).

[Steelgrave]

I can't improve on Longblade's take, so I will just say "ditto". We're asking a helluva lot of our military, SoM, and it is willingly given. DoD needs to trim their budget, and some of that trimming will affect veterans as well as active duty. Uprooting the entire health care system unnecessarily in order to pad his Obamacare is simply more social engineering and does not in any way take the special needs of the military into consideration, not to mention the promises made to them for their service.

Oh and PS....my personal observations about Tricare do not reflect changes which have not happened yet, I know. Tricare is imperfect. My point is that meshing a military-fixated healthcare system into a civilian focused system can only further water down the care our vets and active duty receive.

[son_of_montfort]

These cuts aren't due to budget cuts. On the contrary, they're part of a restructuring of healthcare designed to both bloat the budget and overextend government intrusion into the industry.

Actually, they are about budget cuts. Tricare is a very expensive program for the DoD. The justification (according to the articles I read) was to relieve some of this burden on the DoD by shunting the cost over to another, already funded, healthcare program.

Instead this is about Obamacare destroying a perfectly good insurance program at the expense of veterans. It's got nothing to do with budget cuts and everything to do with not reading the fcuking bill before the law was passed (at the very minimum).

I'm not seeing the connection between Obamacare and the DoD's budgetary problems. Tricare was already expensive for the DoD before Obamacare. You could argue that the Federal government could have put more money into the DoD instead of Obamacare, but that seems to only benefit the military at the expense of the general public and the Federal government would still be spending out that money.

Some would posit that putting your life on the line for Uncle Sam for 20 years in exchange for the promise of health care until retirement isn't that much of a bargain.

This is somewhat of an unfair argument to make. How can I equate research grants to veterans benefits, within that context? But, from my standpoint, one cut effects me directly and the other does not (it effects my family and friends, but not me). We all make choices, and I doubt veterans benefits were in the minds of most who enlisted as a reason to enlist.

[Smuckatelli]

^ Smuck... there is a difference between unbiased media and op-ed, which was what that Biggovernment.com piece was.

I also posted additional links other than biggovernment... ;)

Not that I'm trying to be contentious here, but all three of you were fairly vocal about the need for overall government cuts last August. What did you expect, that the problems you didn't like would get cut but your programs would stay untouched?

Overall is correct, cutting some while leaving others untouched is wrong. Why would the administration not go after unionized people?

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.

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.

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

That mention of Obama's green initiative money was out-of-place, as it predated the drive for spending cuts. The DoD has had financial difficulties, what is the best solution? More government money? Pay and raise cuts? Do you have a better idea of how to make this money up?

The green initiatives were put in for perspective. By cutting Tricare it would save the government 12.9 billion by 2017.......20.5 billion on his Department of Energy green energy grants and loans program, 80 percent of which went to companies owned or tied to Mr. Obama's top fundraisers.