So much for TriCare, so much for Service

[son_of_montfort]

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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[son_of_montfort]

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.

[Steelgrave]

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.

[LongBlade]

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?

[son_of_montfort]

Steelie and Smuck? The changes in Tricare happened because of Obamacare, correct?

Boo hiss! You are arguing from IGNORANCE!? Boo hiss!  ;D

Dead 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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[Steelgrave]

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.

[son_of_montfort]

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.

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.

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).

[son_of_montfort]

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.

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?

[LongBlade]

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.

[LongBlade]

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.

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.

[son_of_montfort]

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?

Don'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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[Steelgrave]

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.

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.