M14 Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US military

7K views 51 replies 27 participants last post by  GARRARD 
#1 ·
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.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

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.

“When they talked to us, they did mention the option of healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. So it’s in their mind,” said a congressional aide involved in the issue.

Military personnel from several of the armed services voiced their opposition to a means-tested tier system for Tricare, prompting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey to issue a statement Feb. 21.

Dempsey said the military is making tough choices in cutting defense spending. In addition to the $487 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon is facing automatic cuts that could push the total reductions to $1 trillion.

“I want those of you who serve and who have served to know that we’ve heard your concerns, in particular your concern about the tiered enrollment fee structure for Tricare in retirement,” Dempsey said. “You have our commitment that we will continue to review our health care system to make it as responsive, as affordable, and as equitable as possible.”

Under the new plan, the Pentagon would get the bulk of its savings by targeting under-65 and Medicare-eligible military retirees through a tiered increase in annual Tricare premiums that will be based on yearly retirement pay.

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.


The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.

The changes are worrying some in the Pentagon who fear it will severely impact efforts to recruit and maintain a high-quality all-volunteer military force. Such benefits have been a key tool for recruiting qualified people and keeping them in uniform.

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” said the congressional aide. “Would anybody accept their taxes being raised 345 percent in five years? Probably not.”

A second congressional aide said the administration’s approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military.

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity,” this aide said. “But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.”

The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,” the second aide said.

Spokesmen for the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not respond to requests for comment on the Tricare increases.

The massive increases beginning next year appear timed to avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year, critics of the plan say.

Additionally, the critics said leaving civilian workers’ benefits unchanged while hitting the military reflect the administration’s effort to court labor unions, as government unions are the only segment of organized labor that has increased in recent years.

As part of the increased healthcare costs, the Pentagon also will impose an annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, a new program that all military retirees automatically must join at age 65. Currently, to enroll in Tricare for Life, retirees pay the equivalent of a monthly Medicare premium.

Under the proposed Pentagon plan, retirees will be hit with an additional annual enrollment fee on top of the monthly premium.

Congressional aides said that despite unanimous support among the military chiefs for the current healthcare changes, some senior officials in the Pentagon are opposing the reforms, in particular the tiered system of healthcare.

“It doesn’t matter what the benefit is, whether it’s commissary, PX, or healthcare, or whatever … under the rationale that if you raise your hand and sign up to serve, you earn a base set of benefits, and it should have nothing to do with your rank when you served, and how much you’re making when you retire,” the first aide said.

Military service organizations are opposing the healthcare changes and say the Pentagon is “means-testing” benefits for service personnel as if they were a social program, and not something earned with 20 or more years of military service.

Retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley, of the Military Officers Association of America, said the Military Coalition, 32 military service and veterans groups with an estimated 5 million members, is fighting the proposed healthcare increases, specifically the use of mean-testing for cost increases.

“We think it’s absolutely wrong,” Beasley told the Free Beacon. “This is a breach of faith” for both the active duty and retiree communities.

Congressional hearings are set for next month.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars on Feb. 23 called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the healthcare increases.

“There is no military personnel issue more sacrosanct than pay and benefits,” said Richard L. DeNoyer, head of the 2 million-member VFW. “Any proposal that negatively impacts any quality of life program must be defeated, and that’s why the VFW is asking everyone to join the fight and send a united voice to Congress.”

Senior Air Force leaders are expected to be asked about the health care cost increases during a House Armed Services Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday.

Congress must pass all the proposed changes into law, as last year’s defense authorization bill preemptively limited how much the Pentagon could increase some Tricare fees, while other fees already were limited in law.

Tricare for Life, Tricare Prime, and Tricare Standard increases must be approved, as well as some of the pharmacy fee increases, congressional aides said.

Current law limits Tricare fee increases to cost of living increases in retirement pay.
http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

This isn't law yet. Write to your representatives.
 
#6 ·
With recently passed laws I’m afraid if I wrote what I fell I would be going in a hole to never see the light of day again( well at least until a patriot occupied the White House) plus I might get sent to baned camp, I doubt it would happen b/c most would agree with me.SOAPBOX1CENSOREDGICENSOREDGICENSOREDGICENSOREDGIDISHOUTSOAPBOX1CENSOREDGICENSOREDGI Obama.
 
#7 ·
My next statement isn't going to be popular, but please put the personal things aside and read it for how I mean it:

People complain about Obamacare. Giving free benefits to those who aren't paying (or pay very little) is practically blasphemy. Yet for those who are prior service (and were fortunate enough to come back without harm), why is there an expectation of lifelong health benefits?

People here rail against unions, they mock GM because of their lack of funds to pay benefits to retired employees, etc... yet the government (who is massively in debt) is exploring making some of the same cuts people would say that GM needs to make (and the post office as well), and somehow those cuts are now abhorrent even though they are in essence the same thing.

It's all about perspective. If it's someone else, it's "the stupid big corporations getting their due". But if it's affecting service folks, it's somehow absolute blasphemy.

And no, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FOLKS INJURED IN THE LINE OF DUTY WITH PERMANENT DISABILITIES.

Is it fair that it's only service folks? Nope. The benefits of the entire government staff should be slashed. I work for a large corporation and my health care costs are way the hell more than $345 per year. I wish I got off that cheap. When I retire from company XYZ, will I get lifelong health benefits? Nope. So why the outcry if that changes for those who choose a military career over the private sector?

I get that people will probably be pissed at me for saying this. Rather than simply replying back at me with anger, please explain your thoughts.

And please don't use the "but they served their country for 4, 10, 20 years or whatever" statement. That would be akin to me saying "because I worked for company XYZ for some number of years, I deserve to have them continue to pay benefits to me after I leave". That's just not logical.

Maybe I'm over-simplifying. But let me also ask this: For anyone who served 4-8 years and are now in the private sector, do you also have an expectation that the company you now work for will pay you benefits after you retire? (Of course not... which is the point I'm trying to make).

One last thing: Yes, I know the ROE. I'm not posting this to troll. I'm posting it to have an honest and open discussion on the topic.
 
#8 ·
In general your comments sound like sour grapes, it's as if you are saying that since you aren't getting this benefit it's unfair that I do receive it and I shouldn't complain when I have to pay more for it. After 20 years of sacrifice, it's my nature to help the team and accept some hardship so I wouldn't argue with a reasonable increase. But I don't think that it's reasonable to ask me to accept a 1200% increase in cost. Additionally, increasing the cost just to force me to adopt a health care program (Obamacare) that I don't support, or agree with, and that isn't as beneficial as my current program, makes the whole idea even more unreasonable.

I made my career choice at 17 years old, when did you make yours?

My career choice included a contract with certain guaranteed benefits, among them was government provided health care if I made it to retirement. That health care was free at one time, but that was long ago, but service people accepted the unnegotiated increase in health care costs when we started having to pay for the coverage. While on active duty, we used to have free medical and dental coverage for our families, not any more, but we accepted that too. Additionally, until recently, we would loose our military health care benefit once we reached the standard retirement age (except for service connected disabilities). My career path was far more dangerous than yours and the government provided me with extra incentive in order to convince me to accept the dangers involved with my line of work.

Do you think it's fair to keep arbitrarily taking away benefits that I was promised after I have met my obligation?

I've voluntarily agreed to being separated from my family on many occasions for up to 18 months at a time, for a total of more than 5 years over a 20 year span, have you?

Most of the time that I was away from my family I lived on board war ships.

My sleeping quarters were below the standard set for murderers and rapists by OSHA. Have you ever lived in conditions like that?

My bathroom was communal and usually had feces and urine floating several inches deep because the sewage system would backup or fail. There were times that our shower water was mixed with sand and your skin would be raw if you were to try to stand under the shower head. Have you had to live under those conditions?

The drinking water was laced with diesel fuel because they rotated the use of the storage tanks from fresh water to fuel oil regularly. Do you know what diesel fuel laced water tastes like?

I've eaten food that most of our society wouldn't touch. Did you ever eat pigs knuckles, bread, and water for supper for three months?

I used to work with my hands soaked in trichloroethylene because it was the authorized cleaning solvent...that was in the late 1970s and early 1980s, several years after the rest of the world quit using it because they found that among it's other negative side effects, it is related to many types of cancer. Have you spent years working with a known carcinogen?

I've been exposed to life threatening diseases while providing emergency assistance to people from other countries. Have you had to work around people with TB, body lice, and all manner of other health threats?

I've had to do without clean water for consumption or hygienic purposes for weeks at a time because our water went to help the victims of environmental disasters. Have you ever had go without drinking water because the treatment system had to be shut down while a dead body was removed from the water intake system?

And those were conditions aboard ship, I've lived in worse off ship. At least I survived, I can't say as much for everybody I've known while in the service. And most of those who died didn't die in some heroic way, they died because the jobs we did were just plain dangerous. Aircraft crashes, heavy equipment accidents, accidental firearms discharges, and many other causes that are unique to the kind of work we did and the places we did it in.

I now suffer several physical and mental disabilities due to the working and living environment I dealt with for more than 20 years.

I was willing to sacrifice my health and take a chance that I wouldn't live through my 20 year contract with government, but I made it, and now I'm being told that it's really unfair of me to ask the government to stick to it's bargain, that it's really unfair of me to ask the American people to honor their side of the agreement after I sacrificed for their benefit...really?, do you really think that I'm being unfair?
 
#10 ·
Damn Garrard, opened a can-o-worms, haha

I totally agree with Rammac on this one.

Now, I do see people milking the system. There are LOADS of soldiers out there who did nothing but sit on their asses their whole term and then got out. Do they deserve certain benifits? My opinion? NO, they do not. PTSD???? Guy..... the closest you ever came to combat was a controlled detonation on your FOB that is the size of new mexico. BUT, its hard to discriminate because then you end up hurting the guys that need it. Youre better off just taking care of everybody. Heck, less than 5% of the nation has served. I mean, lets get real here. How much money does the government spend on fat nasties, pumping out childeren and who wont get up off the couch??

Why dont the jerks who are making this policy live under the same laws, and cut their own benifits first before they go axing soldiers benifits???

I dont typically talk about this but Ive been blown up numerous times by high explosives of various kinds that in some cases literally knocked me out. That does not include the occasional F1 grenade or RPG-7V. Ive lived in crap holes. Ive burned poo, ive ate, lived and slept in the houses and dwellings of forgein nationals. Ive lived next to garbage burn-pits. Im sure theres a screw loose in there somewhere. Last time I went to the eye doc, he told me i had a peice of SHRAPNEL in my eyeball!!... (wtf) Its nice to be able to go to the VA if i have a problem. In addition- maybe if our tyrannical government loosened its grip on everything, costs could come down and things could be affordable.

Like many before and after me, I EARNED my benifits. I dont abuse the system. If im hurt or need help, i go to the VA office. Obama and friends need to be subjected to the same laws, rules and regulations- then we can see what happens.

Heck, the benifit of the "cuts" gained by screwing over every soldier out there doesent even equal one care-package we send to the little worms in pakistan. So what that is telling me is that obama would rather send money to other countries than take care of its vets. No bueno amigo. Whatever, "in-shalla"...........
 
#13 ·
While I'm certainly in favor of cutting spending, even defense spending, this doesn't even make sense (nor is it really even a spending cut for that matter). Our military signed up for a job inherently full of risks and hazards that civilians never have to deal with. The ones that do have union benefits to save them. Perhaps the most significant part of military compensation other than the (very low) salary is the health benefit program. That program is a part of their service contract, and is incredibly important to military personnel, because THE GOVERNMENT subjects them to all kinds of health dangers, and for many the consequences are irreversible. The least the GOVERNMENT can do for them is provide them with health benefits. And it's okay to use the TAXPAYER's money because these military personnel risk (or lose )their asses every day for those very same TAXPAYERS. There is nothing unfair, unjust, or unearned in this system. What's unfair is that unionized government workers can force us to pay whatever the hell they want us to pay them because they have the politicians in their pockets. What's unfair is that our servicemen are being forced onto some Godawful "one size fits all" Obamacare program, when we should be cutting other less necessary, more wasteful military spending instead, or better yet, entitlement spending on citizens who did NOTHING to earn it. Our most important military resource is the military workforce, for without them there is no defense. We don't NEED all the fancy technologies to win, but they sure as hell help save a lot of lives. We DO need servicemen to win, and if we can't take care of them, we're screwed. We're already having enough trouble doing so as it is.

I'm no fan of flinging money at the military just to say you're flinging money at the military, but cutting their health benefits? That's insane. They'd be willing to take a cut in pay, but why not cut the government employee's pay first? Government employees make an average salary that is $20k higher than the average non-government worker salary. The military does not. Congress still likes to vote themselves cost of living increases on an incredibly high salary, and call their work "service".

EDIT:
If you want to fix the budget/deficit problem, it's really easy. You have to actually give a damn first though, and I don't see that from almost ANYBODY in Washington. This is nothing more than a Democrat attempt to shut up a disingenuous Republican party that claims to want to close the budget gap. Both parties placate the voters by reducing the future increase in spending and calling it a "cut". If we restricted the federal government to what the Constitution says it's restricted to, we wouldn't have this budget problem, it'd be impossible to spend this much. Start cutting the unconstitutional crap. Health benefits for soldiers is not unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination.
 
#15 ·
EDIT:
If you want to fix the budget/deficit problem, it's really easy. You have to actually give a damn first though, and I don't see that from almost ANYBODY in Washington. This is nothing more than a Democrat attempt to shut up a disingenuous Republican party that claims to want to close the budget gap. Both parties placate the voters by reducing the future increase in spending and calling it a "cut". If we restricted the federal government to what the Constitution says it's restricted to, we wouldn't have this budget problem, it'd be impossible to spend this much. Start cutting the unconstitutional crap. Health benefits for soldiers is not unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination.
Well said.
 
#14 ·
Been there and done that... I've got the badges, tabs, medals, licsense plates and priority grouping with the VA ... what I don't have is 20... those who did 20 earned it! Whether it was combat arms or rear echelon 20is 20. What is due the uniformed is due, and I am now one of those DoD civilians with a great job because of my service, and it wasn't 20.. . For all of you lifers (20plus) I'm on your side!
 
#16 ·
Sacrifice and obligation;

I've read most of the posts though have not "studied" them. But, I do want to chime in.

The Veterans Administration has different levels of care. First and foremost are those with service connected disabilities, both wounded and injured, ie; combat related or service related. From there is trickles down based on length of service and personal income.

If you can afford health insurance they prefer you have it. There is co-pay on most visits and medications. Again this is based on service in most cases and income in others. I'm keeping it basic here so please don't flame my butt for lack of details. What I'm trying to say is that not everyone who served is getting a "free" ride. Those that can pay are asked to, unless you are connected through wounds or injury, and length, see retired one way or the other.

I have used the VA since I retired. I signed up before I retired. The group I belong to is expected to carry insurance and make co-pays. It's not a free ride necessarily.

Our active duty military and activated reserve and or guard, deserve the full measure of care no matter what. Their loved ones too. We expect so much of them, moved around the country and world basically without roots. Our military personel do not have their own lobby group. Our veterans groups do, via the VFW, Legion, et al. It's up to veterans and sctive duty to speak up and it take little effort to make a call or a short note.

To expect our service persons to have to pay for any of their care is expecting far too much. They make little in the way of pay as it is. I've known very few to leave the military wealthy. We have already seen the reduction in educational benefits from what was provided many years ago.

Everyone who has taken that oath, as it's been said before, many times, signed a blank check with obligation. Some gave all and all gave some.

(rant off)
 
#17 ·
If you can afford health insurance they prefer you have it.
That's the whole point of this thread. If the cost of Tricare triples, more and more people will have to rely on the VA. All the while, the other government departments with their health plans take no hits at all. I avoid the VA like the plague because I've heard many horror stories and mainly because I can afford to. For me, Tricare is sixty something a month. If it goes to $180, I'm done with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoneDawg
#18 ·
a point that is basic to this discussion is the value of a contract. In 1966 I took an oath and was given a promise. I made considerably less than my friends that took private sector jobs and led a much more spartan lifestyle. I accepted the risk and the lifestyle to earn the benefits that were promised. The same is true of social security. I had no choice and was forced to contribute. My private investments have done much better than the forced money for social security. It is not my fault that the "Lockbox" was opened to pay for Vietnam and for dubious social programs. Does anyone see the irony that many of us were sent to that hell hole and our retirement money was spent on corruption and waste. It is not my fault that the money was never put back in the "lockbox" or that we now have a "payroll tax break" at the expense of funding social security which was in trouble before the tax break. So ,now, Because almost half of the population pays no income tax do you really expect me to accept that I must do my share and give up military benefits and take a cut in social security benefits? When we can afford 500 million for Solandra to repay a political debt or build a bridge, that goes nowhere, for votes or build a major airport, for less than 20 people a month or give free cell phones and computers to people on welfare, perhaps there is another way to become solvent. I deserve neither scorn nor praise for my service. As an older man I look back on my service and remember the good times and seldom the bad. I am offended to the point of violence when I am accused of being on the dole. The civilian world has always looked at military retirement and health benefits and whined and cried out of jealousy. If they had the nuts they would have been welcome to be my fighting hole buddy. Sadly there arent many takers and never have been.
 
#21 ·
#22 ·
First, the military is ony .05% of the U.S. population. How can cutting veterans benefits possibly tip the scales of the nations debt. Those of us who serve knew what we were getting into especially the longer we stay in. None of us expect to be taken care of, but our country is paying us back for our sacifices. The private sector doesn't go away away from friends and family for months and even years in a row. WE know we may give the ultimate sacrifice, Therefore we should be given a bit of a break on benefits. I know the civilian sector sacrifices, but when do you place your own life on the line for your country?

I just got back from overseas and there are more civilian contractors doing military jobs for 2-3 times the pay. Cutting this Union/contracts and several other poor spending will help our country. We definately need to stop giving billions of dollars to our enemies. I would start there first before cutting our benefits.

Where do we go from here? What presidential candidate is your choice?
 
#24 ·
I am proud of my 20 years of service. Went through quite a ride as well. I know a lot of vets alongside myself that worked with on aircarft that were subjected to JP-4, Coolant Oil for avionics systems that never had an MSDS (could never get one from manufacturer), Trichloroethylene, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Aircraft Soap (can't remember the mil-spec but was a toxic green color), Radiation from offensive and defensive avionics...the list goes on. Engines screaming that caused alot of us to have hearing loss, working conditions that have wrecked knees, backs, shoulders and other ailments.

Myself, I have upwards of 50% nerve damage on the right side of my body along with bad knees and a bad shoulder. Did I EVER draw a workman's comp from the Air Force? None of us did. We pressed on to do the job we signed up to do just expecting that we'd be taken care of once we finished our service proudly.

For a 20 year retiree, I think what the Politicians are doing now is ludicrous. My disabilities are no where near the severity of the ones that are being sent back from the current conflict. I know a lot of Medics that have seen their share of kids coming into the ER blown to bits by an IED, expected to clean them up and save their lives....can I relate to thier PTSD claims? No, but I can understand it. Seeing things like this come in can mess up even the strongest of people. Do I discount the men and women coming back with severe trauma to the body as in missing limbs or messed up body parts that the VA is beating around the bush to give them their deserved disability packages? It makes me disgusted to think these guys are coming back to yet another war of politicians hanging the Military's benfits above their heads treating them like pawns in the grand scheme of election year positioning.

We need to quit handing out money hand over fist, pull all of our assets back and focus on what we have here. Giving money to foreign countries like it's candy being thrown out in parades has to stop! If the government would pull their collected heads out of the sand, they'd see where we are hemorrhaging funds...This whole situation just pains me.
 
#31 ·
We need to quit handing out money hand over fist, pull all of our assets back and focus on what we have here. Giving money to foreign countries like it's candy being thrown out in parades has to stop! If the government would pull their collected heads out of the sand, they'd see where we are hemorrhaging funds...This whole situation just pains me.
Many people misunderstand part of how this works. I'm not saying all of goes down the way I am about to describe, but some of it does based on what I have studied. Let's say we give X millions to Y country to spend on their defense (or whatever). There is a catch though, we tell them you have X millions to spend but it is held in our account and you must spend it with us. So Y country has to buy defense equipment, weapons and materials from us, which are built in our plants and by our workers (read: jobs).

I'm not saying all foreign aid works like this, but just because you see on the surface that we "gave millions to Y country" doesn't always mean we do not benefit in some way via job or stimulating our own economy.

You might ask, well why not just keep the money and spend it at home? If you ask that, you are missing the big picture of international relations. Would we rather fund Y country and their defense (and gain their allegiance while creating work at home) or would we rather someone else do it?

Politics is a messy game.
 
#25 ·
In answer to Metonymy

I read your post and thought hard before posting my response.

First, I have been a member here for sometime but must admit I never post. Sorry, I'll try to change this.

I am a retired Sergeant Major with twenty-three years active duty. The only reason I retired was due to knee surgury on both knees. Since the knees never fully recovered I felt that I should retire and make room for the younger NCO's who could still lead from the front (couldn't run anymore). I didn't request disability since I planned on being an Army JROTC Instructor, (which I did for twelve years). Now at age 58, with bad knees, two herniated disks, an anterior rib that pops out of it's socket several times a year (fell back off a 5-ton and landed across a trailor tounge down in the motor pool a long time ago), and having developed diabetes 5-years ago along with high blood pressure. I'm supposed to go out and get health insurance with my problems working a part-time job, which is all I can handle???? Every time I reenlisted I was told of the free health care I was earning by serving in the military making fairly low pay and making fourteen PCS moves in twenty-three years.

Yes, it was my decision to stay in the Army. I can't speak for others, but I really felt the call to serve my country. I put up with the seperations, the physical discomforts, getting shot at and all the rest. In the end I was glad I stayed in, and wish I could have stayed longer.

I fell I sacrificed a lot for my country, and have earned everything I was promised during those twenty-three years. I'm willing to sacrifice more, AS LONG AS OTHERS DO THE SAME. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. Mr. Oboma would do well to stop pandering to the unions and the leaches we have sucking the life from our country before he asks for the workers of our country to sacrifice more.

Frankly, I can't wait to see the S.O.B. run out of town.

Sorry for the long-winded rant. Please don't take this personal. You have several valid points and I for one am not a bit offended.

This also is probably not a great first post. I'll try to do better in the future.
 
#27 · (Edited)
There is a huge difference between serving your country (and all the dangers that goes with that), and serving in the private sector.

Last time I checked there were not any super-wealthy, average military people.

Your comments are disappointing to me. I guess I don't have to explain myself.
 
#29 ·
Allow me to make one clarifying statement, and it will show my lack of knowledge of how the inner workings of military contracts work for soldiers.

In the private sector, there *used to be* post-retirement benefits for workers, such as my references to the post office and General Motors. Both of those companies went bankrupt trying to keep up with those benefits (along with tough economic factors).

I knew that for life-long military personnel that post-retirement benefits were guaranteed. My question isn't against those who previously served and retired and were supposed to receive those benefits. The fact that the government is "renegotiating" your contracts without your permission is UTTER .

Where my ignorance of how it works comes into play is this: How is it that the armed forces, knowing that our government is bankrupt, still offer life-long insurance benefits to folks who aren't injured in the line of duty? This is of course where I made my comparison to the private sector no longer paying benefits after retiring.

There are BIG gaps between the public/private sector. I am fully aware of this.

I may be doing an absolutely horrible job of trying to communicate my thoughts here. I have to accept responsibility for that. It's not anyone's fault but my own if I make myself look like an because I don't clearly make the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not trying to piss off the military folks here. I bet the vast majority of the people here have a service background of one form or another. Does anyone actually think I'd intentionally try to piss the entire forum off? I'd surely hope not.

I guess that's really all I have on this. I may not have done myself any justice in trying to clarify some of my points.

And for those who are disappointed in me? I fully accept responsibility for that although that wasn't my intent.
 
#30 ·
I'll take a crack at why I am a little miffed at messing with military healthcare. First off, I don't think it is right for me to take a cut or pay more out of my pocket when there are more "juicy low hanging fruit," that could go a long way to fix what is broke in our country.

First off, when is it my responsibility to pay for a first, second, or third world illegal immigrant's expenses when they arrive and stay illegally in my country?

Second, giving people 99 weeks of unemployment? There is no fine line between welfare and dependency....it is all the same!

Third, if I have to show my ID to purchase beer, why should I not have to show proof of citizenship to vote?

Fourth, I volunteered to join the military 25 yrs ago. I know what it is to be a team member and how to take one for the team, but this is rediculous. The only reason why BHO is targeting military healthcare is because he can. I doubt congress will give him cover for his draconian measures.

Fifth, we need to fix the political correct B.S. hampering us. I am sick and tired of politicians dividing us into groups. Asian Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, etc...we are all Americans!
 
#32 ·
I have to go to school so I have to make this quick. Military members sign up knowing that they will get substandard pay, live in ty conditions away from their family for about 40-50% of the time, could easily die on the job from combat or work related injuries. So why do they do it? They get lifelong healthcare for them and their family for life, and they get a small retirement pay. You take those two out of the equation and how many people that are good service members do you think will say F this I’m out, and how many more do you think will just say I’ll just do something else.
 
#34 · (Edited)
I have come into the military twice. Once as a young recruit and another time as an officer. Personally, I never once raised my right hand with the intention of doing so in order to get retirement benefits or healthcare. While those could be seen as perks they never were even close to the top of the list when I came in nor did I use them during my consideration process.

I wanted to be part of something larger than myself, I wanted to be a Soldier, I wanted to be part of the culture. Just my personal experience. I'm not trying to glorify my own actions here, just sharing my reality which I'm sure coincides with most everyone else. As many servicemembers approach their retirement I'm sure the realization of potential benefits does become quite appealing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top