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/
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 28, 2012, 09:29:53 PM
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-thanks-military-tripling-tricare-premiums-235100402.html)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:41:01 AM
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
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:51:25 AM
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
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:51:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 29, 2012, 09:49:28 AM
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.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:41:01 AM
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.
^ 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?
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
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).
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.
QuoteThese 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.
QuoteInstead 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.
QuoteSome 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.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
^ 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... ;)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:32:22 AMNot 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/
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:32:22 AMThat 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.
What I'm saying is I'm not following the money flow here. How did Obamacare damage Tricare? From all that I have read here, the DoD was already having budget problems and Obamacare is a convenient shunt for vets to relieve the DoD's budgetary issues by removing beneficiaries from a program too expensive for the DoD to manage.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:47:44 AM
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.
There's the key.
Government presence in health care in the form of Tricare is appropriate.
Government presence in health care in the form of Obamacare is inappropriate.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 29, 2012, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:47:44 AM
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.
There's the key.
Government presence in health care in the form of Tricare is appropriate.
Government presence in health care in the form of Obamacare is inappropriate.
That didn't answer my legitimate question. From a money flow issue - how did one hurt the other? I'm not arguing politics here, I really want to know.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:47:44 AM
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.
Dead wrong, my friend. Veterans benefits are typically NOT the reason a young person enlists in the first place. However, healthcare is a major reason why they
reenlist. My wife had already signed the papers to go in after school when we met. I had just gotten out of the Navy and wasn't thrilled, but hey...she was the girl for me. She never intended to do more than one tour, but at the end of four years we had a son and healthcare was the major reason she reupped. We are not alone. Both from personal experience ( and God knows, I couldn't begin to count the number of military people I know ) and from recruiting statistics, the numbers are clear: health care benefits tend to rank as perhaps the number one incentive to reenlist.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:54:39 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 29, 2012, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:47:44 AM
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.
There's the key.
Government presence in health care in the form of Tricare is appropriate.
Government presence in health care in the form of Obamacare is inappropriate.
That didn't answer my legitimate question. From a money flow issue - how did one hurt the other?
I'm not reading the 2000 page law to tell you explicitly.
Steelie and Smuck? The changes in Tricare happened because of Obamacare, correct?
QuoteSteelie and Smuck? The changes in Tricare happened because of Obamacare, correct?
Boo hiss! You are arguing from IGNORANCE!? Boo hiss! ;D
QuoteDead wrong, my friend. Veterans benefits are typically NOT the reason a young person enlists in the first place.
Like I said, I'm not getting into that. It is unfair to ask me to compare cuts that effect my profession versus cuts that effect veterans on a moral/economic/or societal worth basis. My point is, when the axe came for my profession, we were mocked and the axe was cheered. But the axe hurts, no matter who it comes for.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:58:44 AM
My point is, when the axe came for my profession, we were mocked and the axe was cheered. But the axe hurts, no matter who it comes for.
Yes, we're all due for some pain.
But it should come not at the expense of Obamacare, but rather in the form of budget cuts. Real, honest, we're-in-this-together cuts.
Tricare has been under budgetary pressure and some increases in co-pay were certain. Military and retirees knew this and have been bracing for increases. But this was an increase in Tricare, an existing structure which has provided healthcare for the military for years. Proposing to force rates up by 300% or more in order to force the military and retirees to leave Tricare in order to shore up Obamacare came out of the blue and was never discussed openly until now. It's dismantling a system which, while imperfect, has served the military well overall. My understanding is that even Secretary Panetta is fighting this behind the scenes.
BTW, a quick Google search seems to indicate that Tricare was exempt from the Obamacare reform. So the answer is - it didn't touch it.
What the argument is about now, from the Google search, is that the current Tricare cuts are being done as an incentive (or to force, depending on the journalist) vets to abandon Tricare and enroll in Obamacare, as a way to relieve budget pressure from the DoD.
So it would be interesting for some of you Tricare enrolled people to tell me how this is wrong/right and how exactly one influenced the other.
QuoteBut it should come not at the expense of Obamacare, but rather in the form of budget cuts. Real, honest, we're-in-this-together cuts.
But cutting Obamacare won't bring the DoD's money back unless we put that money into the DoD instead (and the Feds would still be spending out and the general population of non-vets would suffer).
QuoteProposing to force rates up by 300% or more in order to force the military and retirees to leave Tricare in order to shore up Obamacare came out of the blue and was never discussed openly until now.
The highlighted part is what confuses me. Why are we thinking about this as "shoring up Obamacare" rather than "relieving the budget of the DoD?" What do we care if Obamacare has people enrolled in it or not?
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:04:57 PM
But cutting Obamacare won't bring the DoD's money back unless we put that money into the DoD instead (and the Feds would still be spending out and the general population of non-vets would suffer).
Then it's political mismanagement. There is plenty of waste in the military.
Cutting health care coverage and combat brigades is cutting flesh and bones while leaving the fat.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:07:20 PM
QuoteProposing to force rates up by 300% or more in order to force the military and retirees to leave Tricare in order to shore up Obamacare came out of the blue and was never discussed openly until now.
The highlighted part is what confuses me. Why are we thinking about this as "shoring up Obamacare" rather than "relieving the budget of the DoD?" What do we care if Obamacare has people enrolled in it or not?
Don't be coy. Obamacare is the start of a single-payer system. It's designed to put private insurance out of business.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 29, 2012, 12:07:44 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:04:57 PM
But cutting Obamacare won't bring the DoD's money back unless we put that money into the DoD instead (and the Feds would still be spending out and the general population of non-vets would suffer).
Then it's political mismanagement. There is plenty of waste in the military.
Cutting health care coverage and combat brigades is cutting flesh and bones while leaving the fat.
Ok, granted. But is Obama to blame for this?
QuoteDon't be coy. Obamacare is the start of a single-payer system. It's designed to put private insurance out of business.
I disagree 100%. If it is putting private insurance out of business, then why does it involve them in such an integral way and why are they still doing rather well? I can't see any way for Obamacare to transition to a viable single-pay system that replaces private insurance.
I'm not so sure insurance companies are doing all that well. We know Obamacare has only just begun to kick in.
Insurance companies are reacting to it by hiking rates significantly (probably what's happening with Tricare).
In ten years (if we are unfortunate enough to be still burdened with Obamacare) I suspect the landscape will look dreadfully different.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:07:20 PM
QuoteProposing to force rates up by 300% or more in order to force the military and retirees to leave Tricare in order to shore up Obamacare came out of the blue and was never discussed openly until now.
The highlighted part is what confuses me. Why are we thinking about this as "shoring up Obamacare" rather than "relieving the budget of the DoD?" What do we care if Obamacare has people enrolled in it or not?
SoM, by increasing rates 300% it should be clear that Tricare's "exemption" from Obamacare is all smoke and mirrors. Forcing the military away from a healthcare system which was designed for their specific needs (and to honor promises made) into a "catch-all" health insurance plan IS an issue. You may not want to compare moral issues of military service and sacrifices vs. other areas of our society, but that argument was already settled years ago when we promised our veterans lifetime healthcare in exchange for the sacrifices they made. I'm not taking away anyone's contributions or worth here nor arguing that the military should not share the pain of budget cuts, but the military is not and never has been just another federal job.
QuoteInsurance companies are reacting to it by hiking rates significantly (probably what's happening with Tricare).
This is a legitimate cause-effect argument, and the only one I see to connect the two programs. Insurance rates, in general, have increased and thus Tricare's costs have increased. Some of that is due to Obamacare (some of it is due to longer lifespans and more obesity).
QuoteIn ten years (if we are unfortunate enough to be still burdened with Obamacare) I suspect the landscape will look dreadfully different.
If you mean exactly like it looks today only more expensive (just like we are today, compared to a decade ago), then you are probably right! ;)
QuoteYou may not want to compare moral issues of military service and sacrifices vs. other areas of our society, but that argument was already settled years ago when we promised our veterans lifetime healthcare in exchange for the sacrifices they made. I'm not taking away anyone's contributions or worth here nor arguing that the military should not share the pain of budget cuts, but the military is not and never has been just another federal job.
Well, as I said, not an argument I can win nor want to engage.
My points regarding the premium raise are these:
1. The DoD says it can't afford the program without other cuts (it said pay and raise cuts) or a rise in the premiums.
2. The premium raises are to help the DoD afford the program OR to get vets to choose another program to help the DoD pay for it.
3. Calls for cuts in Federal spending mean that the Feds can't/won't simply funnel more money into the DoD to help it afford Tricare without premium raises.
What other solution does the DoD have (other than cutting other places, which also has consequences). It can get more Federal money. It can raise its rates. Or it can cut the program.
Why is this ire not directed at DoD mismanagement?
My philosophy would be to increase the Federal money to cover the costs... but I'm a tax and spender... 8)
Efficient delivery of a prescribed benefit to those eligible in a program.
Nice concise description of what is supposed to be happening here.
The detail is in the fine print though....
What level of health care was promised? At what cost?
Was it a blank cheque?
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 11:47:44 AM
We all make choices, and I doubt veterans benefits were in the minds of most who enlisted as a reason to enlist.
Steelie covered it very well about re-enlisting. Initial reasons for me enlisting, my first contract....
I couldn't afford school, my high school was a prep school, (I had a 3.1 GPA) no vocational education. My father & mother's combined salaries stopped me from getting grants or qualifying for most student loans. The one loan that I qualified for was a 'Plus Loan' at 15% interest to be paid back monthly as soon as I received it. In order to afford that loan I would have had to work full time shaving.
My options were extrememly limited, love for country and benefits were why I enlisted.
Wanna take a guess as to why Smuckette is joining?
Quote from: Windigo on February 29, 2012, 12:54:31 PM
Efficient delivery of a prescribed benefit to those eligible in a program.
Nice concise description of what is supposed to be happening here.
The detail is in the fine print though....
What level of health care was promised? At what cost?
Was it a blank cheque?
One of the first lessons learned in the military is to 'suck it up', in other words, this is the hand you've been dealt, you have no choice but to live with it.
With that in mind, yes, we will do what needs to be done but when you start diggin deeper into the mess a couple of things pop up;
The DoD is taking 50% of the deficit reductions while it uses 20% of the budget.
Administration Officials told Congress:
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.Throw this into the amount of money that has been wasted on key party donators...remember this is taxpayer money, not party money and you have a level of dishonesty that is hard to fathom.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:21:22 PM
QuoteInsurance companies are reacting to it by hiking rates significantly (probably what's happening with Tricare).
This is a legitimate cause-effect argument, and the only one I see to connect the two programs. Insurance rates, in general, have increased and thus Tricare's costs have increased. Some of that is due to Obamacare (some of it is due to longer lifespans and more obesity).
That's the point: Obamacare (as Windy notes) promised to
lower rates. Instead it caused an additional increase over already increasing rates. Call that legitimate if you want, but I don't.
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 29, 2012, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: Windigo on February 29, 2012, 12:54:31 PM
Efficient delivery of a prescribed benefit to those eligible in a program.
Nice concise description of what is supposed to be happening here.
The detail is in the fine print though....
What level of health care was promised? At what cost?
Was it a blank cheque?
One of the first lessons learned in the military is to 'suck it up', in other words, this is the hand you've been dealt, you have no choice but to live with it.
With that in mind, yes, we will do what needs to be done but when you start diggin deeper into the mess a couple of things pop up;
The DoD is taking 50% of the deficit reductions while it uses 20% of the budget.
Administration Officials told Congress:
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.
Throw this into the amount of money that has been wasted on key party donators...remember this is taxpayer money, not party money and you have a level of dishonesty that is hard to fathom.
It is true; for reasons somewhat unfathomable to me, current liberals erroneously in my opinion, view the military as an optional expense. An area where you can go to in order to make relatively painfree cuts (from a general public perspective). In this case it is the 3-4th largest expense behind a few biggies like social security and healthcare right?
Hmmm, screw around with a seniors pension or the general public's healthcare = big huge outcry
but create an
us vs them scenario and the fewer in number lose.
In this case I think a reasoned response of "Really?? You want to do that to our Vets - our people first? Rather than look at gaining efficiencies and cost savings in programs? Oh come-on you're way too wise to reach for the easy answer"
Putting a face on an issue helps alot too.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 29, 2012, 01:23:59 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 12:21:22 PM
QuoteInsurance companies are reacting to it by hiking rates significantly (probably what's happening with Tricare).
This is a legitimate cause-effect argument, and the only one I see to connect the two programs. Insurance rates, in general, have increased and thus Tricare's costs have increased. Some of that is due to Obamacare (some of it is due to longer lifespans and more obesity).
That's the point: Obamacare (as Windy notes) promised to lower rates. Instead it caused an additional increase over already increasing rates. Call that legitimate if you want, but I don't.
Better pay attention LB. St. SoM is not Windigo. Liberals come in different flavours - just like neocon whackjobs that think the world is full of conspiracies. How batshit crazy a conservative is determines what part of the republican spectrum they are on.
;D ;D
QuoteThat's the point: Obamacare (as Windy notes) promised to lower rates. Instead it caused an additional increase over already increasing rates. Call that legitimate if you want, but I don't.
No no... your argument was legitimate. That was the best way to connect the problems with Tricare with Obamacare, IMHO.
QuoteThe DoD is taking 50% of the deficit reductions while it uses 20% of the budget.
Administration Officials told Congress:
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.
Throw this into the amount of money that has been wasted on key party donators...remember this is taxpayer money, not party money and you have a level of dishonesty that is hard to fathom.
Now we are getting to what I stated in the first place, and why I was slightly irritated. Many called for cuts. Many of these are now saying "oh no, don't cut THAT!" People lauded proposed cuts to my profession's programs. Why should I now feel any remorse when programs affecting other people are cut? At least vets still have the option to benefit from Obamacare. The NEH and Fulbright grants are major sources of funding for research, particularly to go overseas (and to act as cultural "diplomats," the mission of the program). Cutting Stafford loan subsidies gained a pittance but socked already impoverished graduate students.
This isn't a comparison of societal worth. What I am noting is the byproduct of too much emphasis on budget cuts. We all tighten our belts on this one.
QuoteWanna take a guess as to why Smuckette is joining?
The strong personality of her military father? ;)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 01:49:08 PM
This isn't a comparison of societal worth. What I am noting is the byproduct of too much emphasis on budget cuts. We all tighten our belts on this one.
Now see, I think this is where the argument parts ways. When you say this isn't a comparison of societal worth, you are removing the major argument in favor of why the military receives fairly generous health care in the first place. Before anyone misunderstands, feelings are hurt or anyone is angered, the military stands apart from our society exactly because they are willing to do what they do. If an employer tells you to pack your bags, you're going to Afghanistan, you can tell said employer to please kiss both cheeks equally as you depart their office. The military
does stand apart, which is why the Supremes are debating what to do about fakers who claim military honors they haven't earned. Why claim something of no value? I value my friends here and have no idea of who has served or who has not unless they have volunteered that information and I don't form relationships based on that info anyway, but I gotta say thank God for Smuck and Jarhead and the guys who put it on the line. Someone breaks into my house at night, I'm prepared for that. The Canadians cross the border, that's the military's job.
It's already been established that DoD is willing to cut the budget, and we vets and retirees are going to pay more. That's neither the issue nor the argument. Fact is that this administration is continuing to alter our society with back-door methods like increasing Tricare astronomically in order to force movement, rather than just be upfront and close the damn program if that's the decision. Makes you wonder if they were simply hoping to escape notice with voters.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 01:49:08 PM
Now we are getting to what I stated in the first place, and why I was slightly irritated. Many called for cuts. Many of these are now saying "oh no, don't cut THAT!
SoM, If your thrust is straight even cuts across the board, I'm pretty sure just about everyone will agree. Taking a 50% cut when you spend 20% of the budget is not an even cut across the board.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 01:49:08 PM
" People lauded proposed cuts to my profession's programs. Why should I now feel any remorse when programs affecting other people are cut?
I didn't laud cuts to your profession's programs. Keep in mind, your profession directly impacts me and my family......one of the reasons why Smuckette is now unfortunately going into my profession.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 01:49:08 PMAt least vets still have the option to benefit from Obamacare.
Taking away promises in order to force a person into buying something is not an option....hell it isn't even American....
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 01:49:08 PMThe NEH and Fulbright grants are major sources of funding for research, particularly to go overseas (and to act as cultural "diplomats," the mission of the program). Cutting Stafford loan subsidies gained a pittance but socked already impoverished graduate students.
Apples and oranges.
The grants and loan subsidies are given by the government as an investment in the future. TriCare is for services rendered, big difference.
Regarding the impoverished graduate students.....maybe they should follow Smuckette's route? :-\
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 01:49:08 PM
QuoteWanna take a guess as to why Smuckette is joining?
The strong personality of her military father? ;)
My strong personality would have gotten her into the Marine Corps, not the Navy. ;)
She is in the same boat that I was in during 1980-81. She realized that committing to the Navy for 8 years (5 active duty) would pay her tuition at GWU. In addition once commissioned she could get the Navy to cover her Masters for an additional 2 year active duty. After 7 years active duty she could go for her doctorate and let the Navy pay for it and do additional time or she could use her GI Bill if it is still around. At the end of her commitment she will have at least 6 years of school finished and not be in debt.
All;
I need to get this out there. No hard feelings on anything that is being posted here or in other threads.
The last thing that we need is to take our baseballs home because others don't want to play by our ideas of what the rules should be.
Alligator skin protects warm hearts....just sayin.. :-*
QuoteIt's already been established that DoD is willing to cut the budget, and we vets and retirees are going to pay more. That's neither the issue nor the argument. Fact is that this administration is continuing to alter our society with back-door methods like increasing Tricare astronomically in order to force movement, rather than just be upfront and close the damn program if that's the decision. Makes you wonder if they were simply hoping to escape notice with voters.
But my assertion is that this is not a back-door to get people into their program but a front-door policy to help a beleaguered DoD budget.
I get the argument for societal worth, but I think you can make a claim for nearly all sorts of funded programs. I can argue ad nauseam for the societal importance of research grants and general education of the population but that leads to a useless comparison of guns and butter that isn't particularly helpful.
I'll be 100% honest, because you guys are friends and I feel like I can be. I feel like academics have to fight societal bias from a lot of sides (anti-elitism, anti-education, anti-liberal professors, anti-"expertise", anti-university economcis). When academic programs are proposed to have heavy cuts, a lot of rhetoric finds this to be a good thing to stick it to "useless" members of society. When people talk budget cuts, these are the programs first proposed.
But cut veterans' benefits and its like everyone's mother has been insulted. We get people thinking about this from all angles, we get a breakdown of all the money, we get detailed reports and arguments about the impact.
I know the three people in this thread (other than Windi) were proponents of major Federal budget cuts. So to see upset because the cuts are being proposed, but to the "wrong" programs really strikes a cord with me. I wanted more info though, so I understood the issue before playing my hand.
So this is admission of personal politics, in a sense. I absolutely honor what veterans have done and think they should get these benefits. But its makes me a bit chagrined that the notion of moving from one funded option to another funded option is anathema, when - in my profession - there cuts were proposed with no alternative options. So being contentious here was more out of jealousy than logic.
QuoteRegarding the impoverished graduate students.....maybe they should follow Smuckette's route?
That is fine and good, but I can't join the military for money to go into an archive... unless they station me in an archive. ;)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 03:07:55 PM
QuoteIt's already been established that DoD is willing to cut the budget, and we vets and retirees are going to pay more. That's neither the issue nor the argument. Fact is that this administration is continuing to alter our society with back-door methods like increasing Tricare astronomically in order to force movement, rather than just be upfront and close the damn program if that's the decision. Makes you wonder if they were simply hoping to escape notice with voters.
But my assertion is that this is not a back-door to get people into their program but a front-door policy to help a beleaguered DoD budget.
I get the argument for societal worth, but I think you can make a claim for nearly all sorts of funded programs. I can argue ad nauseam for the societal importance of research grants and general education of the population but that leads to a useless comparison of guns and butter that isn't particularly helpful.
I'll be 100% honest, because you guys are friends and I feel like I can be. I feel like academics have to fight societal bias from a lot of sides (anti-elitism, anti-education, anti-liberal professors, anti-"expertise", anti-university economcis). When academic programs are proposed to have heavy cuts, a lot of rhetoric finds this to be a good thing to stick it to "useless" members of society. When people talk budget cuts, these are the programs first proposed.
But cut veterans' benefits and its like everyone's mother has been insulted. We get people thinking about this from all angles, we get a breakdown of all the money, we get detailed reports and arguments about the impact.
I know the three people in this thread (other than Windi) were proponents of major Federal budget cuts. So to see upset because the cuts are being proposed, but to the "wrong" programs really strikes a cord with me. I wanted more info though, so I understood the issue before playing my hand.
So this is admission of personal politics, in a sense. I absolutely honor what veterans have done and think they should get these benefits. But its makes me a bit chagrined that the notion of moving from one funded option to another funded option is anathema, when - in my profession - there cuts were proposed with no alternative options. So being contentious here was more out of jealousy than logic.
QuoteRegarding the impoverished graduate students.....maybe they should follow Smuckette's route?
That is fine and good, but I can't join the military for money to go into an archive... unless they station me in an archive. ;)
There is a lot of fat that could be trimmed from the military budget, starting with the outrageous level of very senior officers to troops. I think that a serious evaluation of what we want our military to be able to do and what we are willing to pay for to get it done is always in order. But the cuts-to-budget ratio that is being inflicted upon DoD is out of whack. As far as what is being proposed for Tricare, I just can't see it as a front door option, not when the Administration says that they will be raising rates to "force" military members and retirees to choose Obamacare. It's the argument we heard when this was being debated in the first place, which amounts to "you will still be free to choose your own healthcare" while under the breath the message is "if you can still afford it after we jack the rates up astronomically".
I get where you are coming from, SoM. After all, I have a son who is working hard at becoming a full professor. Could be worse, I guess....he was considering Law School at one time. 8)
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 29, 2012, 03:04:18 PM
All;
I need to get this out there. No hard feelings on anything that is being posted here or in other threads.
The last thing that we need is to take our baseballs home because others don't want to play by our ideas of what the rules should be.
Alligator skin protects warm hearts....just sayin.. :-*
Yeah, agreed. I have strong opinions and do not always express myself as well as I wish, but I feel that I am among friends here (or at least people who can tolerate me....somewhat) and that our discussions are spirited and informed, and more often than not, respectful. If I personally ever stray from that, feel free to call me on it. God knows, my wife has to sometimes.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 03:07:55 PM
So this is admission of personal politics, in a sense. I absolutely honor what veterans have done and think they should get these benefits.
I'm not doubting your honor towards veterans... ;)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 03:07:55 PMBut its makes me a bit chagrined that the notion of moving from one funded option to another funded option is anathema,
Okay...keep in mind, I'm a realitively simple man.....
So we can't afford to provide a benefit to an extremely small percentage of the U.S. population for services rendered.
If we can't afford to provide for the small percentage.....how are we going to provide for everyone?
TriCare is a funded program, Affordable Healthcare isn't, where are the funds going to come from if we can't afford healthcare for the small percentage of veterans?
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 03:07:55 PM
QuoteRegarding the impoverished graduate students.....maybe they should follow Smuckette's route?
That is fine and good, but I can't join the military for money to go into an archive... unless they station me in an archive. ;)
It's the benefits, not the money.......
MOS/Title: 8878 -- Historian
Type of Officer : All
Type of MOS : FMOS
Rank Range: N/A
Job Description: Marine Corps historians function as coordinators of historical activities and participate in a military historical writing program of military historical institutions.
Job Requirements:
Must possess a master's degree in history from an accredited university.
Duties:
(1) Researches and writes official histories of Marine Corps activities.
(2) Supervises, as required, the preparation of such histories with background in historical references, libraries, and archives.
(3) Participates as researcher, interviewer, and editor in oral history interviews with senior officers and key participants insignificant Marine Corps activities.
(4) Monitors the conduct of oral history interviews by field organizations.
(5) Instructs or may instruct in military history, with emphasis on amphibious warfare, at officer schools.
(6) Prepares lesson plans and supporting instructional material.
(7) Advises commanding officers on historical matters.
(8) Instructs or may instruct in naval service educational institutions such as Command and Staff Colleges or the U.S. service academies.
^ Is that a serious job opening at the moment? And do I have to actually join the USMC? If not, I will apply and you need to send me that info!
No hard feelings at all. I was trying to get the long and short of it (i.e. who is to blame, DoD, Obama, Cthulhu). Personal politics ruffle me about the situation. I'm not even sure I can do something like draw unemployment next year if I do get a job (since I didn't "lose" a job by graduating with a PhD).
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 03:54:34 PM
^ Is that a serious job opening at the moment? And do I have to actually join the USMC? If not, I will apply and you need to send me that info!
That is a serious job for an Officer, MOS is Military Occupational Specialty.
There are also civilians that do this work for the military.
http://www.smh-hq.org/opps/jobs.html
I could dig deeper if you are interested.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 29, 2012, 03:54:34 PMNo hard feelings at all. I was trying to get the long and short of it (i.e. who is to blame, DoD, Obama, Cthulhu). Personal politics ruffle me about the situation. I'm not even sure I can do something like draw unemployment next year if I do get a job (since I didn't "lose" a job by graduating with a PhD).
^
I fixed it for you. :)
We have the Navy Museum at the Navy Yard in DC. The National Museum of the Marine Corps up the street.
The Smithsonian in D.C. all good places to work and build your resume until you find the job of your dreams teaching.
I'm pulling this out of an earlier post, it really should stand alone:
Okay...keep in mind, I'm a realitively simple man.....
So we can't afford to provide a benefit to an extremely small percentage of the U.S. population for services rendered.
If we can't afford to provide for the small percentage.....how are we going to provide for everyone?
TriCare is a funded program, Affordable Healthcare isn't, where are the funds going to come from if we can't afford healthcare for the small percentage of veterans?
Wow, good thing I'm not a conspiracy theorist.......
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/01/10548738-conservative-firebrand-andrew-breitbart-has-died-at-age-43 (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/01/10548738-conservative-firebrand-andrew-breitbart-has-died-at-age-43) ???
Woah, he was very young! I didn't agree with his politics or his method of delivery but I feel sorry for his family. That is too bad, he has young children who will miss him.
Too young to die. Sorry to read that.