[Vision2020] Pentagon Proposes Steep Hikes in Tricare Costs for Retirees

[Donovan Arnold]

Suddenly, Wal-Mart's health plan of only 30 cents  a day for any employee who wants it, and 30 cents a day for each child,  doesn't seem so bad.
  
 Perhaps if the military offered the same  benefits as Wal-Mart it would have 25,000 applicants per 500 openings  just like them, versus getting only one applicant for every two  positions.
  
  Take Care,
  
  _DJA

Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:                      st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                    From the Army Times (www.armytimes.com)  –
     
    As President Bush requests Congress to permanently maintain tax  breaks for corporate America  and the wealthy, the lost revenue must come from somewhere.
     
    So, why not take it from veteran health care?
     
    F**K BUSH !
     
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Pentagon proposes steep hikes in Tricare costs for retirees
     
    By Rick Maze
    Times staff writer
     
    A  Pentagon proposal that could triple some Tricare insurance costs for  military retirees and their families is drawing sharp criticism from  military advocacy groups and members of Congress.
     
    The  plan, being considered as part of the 2007 budget request to be  unveiled Feb. 6, would increase Tricare fees for retirees under age 65  beginning Oct. 1.
     
    Increases  would be substantial — as much as $1,200 more a year by 2009 — with no  end in sight because the plan calls for annual rate hikes in 2010 and  beyond that would match inflation.
     
    Details  on the proposal were provided by the Military Officers Association of  America, one of many military-related grups mobilizing to fight the  proposal.
     
    Defense  Department officials confirmed that Tricare fees were being considered  as part of the 2007 budget, but would not discuss any details until the  White House releases the federal budget plan.
     
    Senior  Pentagon leaders, both military and civilian, know their plan will meet  with stiff opposition and are trying to prepare a united front, defense  sources said. The Joint Chiefs are considering sending a rare joint  letter to Congress explaining why the fee increases are important  because they do not see how the military can afford needed weapons  programs if soaring health care costs remain unchecked, sources said.
     
    A  key element of the proposal is to discourage retirees from using the  military medical system if they have other options, such as insurance  through a post-service employer, because this would generate savings  far greater than any money raised through higher enrollment fees.
     
    “This  is wrong on so many levels,” said Steve Strobridge, government  relations director for the Military Officers Association of America. 
     
    “In  the middle of a war, with troops and families vastly overstressed,  recruiting already in the toilet, and retention at risk, the Defense  Department wants to pay for weapons by cutting manpower and trying to  cut career military benefits by $1,000 a year or more? That’s just flat  unconscionable. Not only is it grossly unfair to the people, but it  poses terrible risks for long-term retention and readiness.”
     
    Strobridge  acknowledged that health care costs are rising, but said he can’t see  why defense officials are willing to accept massive increases in the  cost of weapons but not in personnel.
     
    “If  DoD is willing to accept 400 percent to 500 percent cost growth in  weapons systems, then people are no less important,” he said, noting  that the cost of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has increased 392  percent since 1985, while the cost of an F-22 Raptor has jumped by 526  percent.
     
    “The  Pentagon needs to acknowledge its own management responsibility for  rising weapons costs rather than trying to stick military retirees with  the bill.”
     
    A blow to expectations
     
    Active-duty  members would not be directly affected by the fee increases, but  representatives of major military associations said there is an impact  on morale.
     
    “For  anyone well along in their career who is thinking about retirement,  this is a blow to their expectations about what the government is going  to do for them,” said Jim Lokovic of the Air Force Sergeants  Association, who has been traveling to military bases to discuss  changes in pay and benefits.
     
    “Many  of the people I have been talking with have 10 or more years of  service, and remember when they were told by recruiters and career  counselors that if they just stayed around, the government was going to  provide them with free health care in retirement,” Lokovic said.
     
    “Well,  we learned years ago it wasn’t free, and now we are learning that it  isn’t cheap either,” he said. “I think those who are well along toward  retirement in their career are going to stay 
 but those who are at the  decision point are going to see this as an erosion of retirement  benefits. I promise you some are going to get out because of it.”
     
    Strobridge  agreed. “Don’t try to tell us that a country that can afford hundreds  of billions of dollars in pork spending and tax cuts can’t afford to  pay for both military weapons and retiree health care,” he said.
     
    More than 22,000 members of the officer’s group have  written Congress opposing the initiative, he said.
     
    House Democrats seized on the controversy with a Jan. 25  letter to President Bush asking him to disavow the fee proposal.
     
    “It  is unconscionable that you would even consider a fee increase on the  men and women in uniform who bravely sacrificed for our country,  especially during a time of war,” states the letter from House  Democratic leaders. “We must demonstrate our commitment to our troops  and future veterans by assuring them that just as they protected us, we  will take care of them when their service ends.”
     
    They  said the fee increase not only is unfair to military retirees, but will  also hurt military readiness through its impact on recruiting and  retention.
     
    “Your  administration must not shift additional costs upon veterans or  military retirees,” they wrote, adding that to do so would be “a  national disgrace and 
 a pointed rebuke to those who served and have  earned those benefits.”
     
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    And once the returning troops become veterans, what then of  that once proud support, America?
     
    Take care, Moscow.
     
    Tom Hansen
    Moscow, Idaho
     
        "Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but  the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." 
  
  --Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.
    
     
    
    _____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯



		
---------------------------------
 
 What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060126/010bc058/attachment-0001.htm