So much for TriCare, so much for Service

[son_of_montfort]

Insurance 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).

In 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!  ;)

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.

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)

[Windigo]

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?

[Smuckatelli]

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?

[Smuckatelli]

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.

[LongBlade]

Insurance 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.

[Windigo]

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.

[Windigo]

Insurance 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

[son_of_montfort]

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.

No no... your argument was legitimate. That was the best way to connect the problems with Tricare with Obamacare, IMHO.

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.

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.

Wanna take a guess as to why Smuckette is joining?

The strong personality of her military father?  ;)

[Steelgrave]

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.

[Smuckatelli]

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.

" 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.

At 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....

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.

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?   :-\

Wanna 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.

[Smuckatelli]

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.. :-*

[son_of_montfort]

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.

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. 

Regarding 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.  ;)

[Steelgrave]

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.

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. 

Regarding 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)

[Steelgrave]

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.

[Smuckatelli]

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... ;)

But 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?

Regarding 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.