Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers

[PackIsBack 124]

Source

 

In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers.

 

The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon.

 

Gertz added:

 

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.

 

Not everybody is happy with the plan, however.

 

Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 - 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums "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," Gertz wrote.

 

Active duty military personnel would also see an increased cost for pharmaceuticals, and the incentive to use less expensive generic drugs would be gone.

 

Health benefits has long been a prime reason many stay in the military - but some in the Pentagon fear the new rules will hamper recruitment and retention.

 

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” one aide said.

 

John Hayward of Human Events adds:

 

Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become “means-tested” in the manner of a social program – treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and “avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year,” according to critics.

 

There will be congressional hearings on the new military health care policies next month. Opposition is building in Congress, and among veterans’ organizations, including the VFW, which has “called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the health care increases.”

 

Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel - who are not unionized - and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions.

 

Gertz wrote:

 

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.

 

I heard this on the news yesterday, and I was shocked that this hasn't been discussed in the media. Both retired and current military personnel have given so much and sacrificed so much for our safety that it seems unfair to increase their health insurance costs over government union workers.

[Duck Fallas 209]

It is easier for him to cut benefits to the military than it would be to fight the unions.

 

I truly wish I were joking.

 

[BigBen07 285]

Yeah, and in the meantime, most of these vets are hurting physically and psychologically. Smart move, folks!!!

[Thanatos 2,847]

Being part of a military family myself, I'm rather ticked at this.

 

I know my dad originally joined the Navy partly because he had a health bill and needed something that would cover it, and I'm not sure what he would have done if that hadn't been the case.

 

It won't affect me directly, as I'm already off of being a dependent, so I'd have to pay money for Tricare personally, and honestly, I can get much cheaper deals for someone who almost never goes to the hospital. But it will affect my sister directly, and my parents.

 

And yeah, I had heard nothing about this in the news.

[BucD+ 648]

Wow.

 

I mean...I really don't know what to say to this...

 

As a retired vet. myself...thanks Obama....fucking amazing...

[SteVo+ 3,702]

And yeah, I had heard nothing about this in the news.

 

Because liberals control the media, and they don't want to broadcast anything that might hurt Obama's reelection chances.

[Shotgun 442]

Just as much blame can be put on the Republican party for their constant tax cutting and hiked spending as it can on Obama. The mess leading to these spending cuts started way before he became President. If you think this or any other shitty thing he's passed taking away our rights will be changed with a new President you're deluding yourselves. We're fucked either way. While everyone's arguing over stupid shit like gay marriage and abortion, both parties are ruining the country.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

If you think this or any other shitty thing he's passed taking away our rights will be changed with a new President you're deluding yourselves. We're fucked either way.

 

[RazorStar 4,025]

[Shotgun 442]

 

 

Let's get real. It's unfortunate, but obvious by now he has zero chance of winning. Elections are completely controlled by the media these days because the uninformed, retarded Americans make up the majority of voters. The only chance a guy like Ron Paul has of winning is if a President tries to take away freedom of the press.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Oh I hear ya, I'm just saying that there is at least one option out there where America has some hope. And it's terribly unfortunate that he has such a small chance of winning, for the reasons you listed.

 

The way I look at it, the chances of some real, positive good coming to this country if Ron Paul is elected is somewhere between 30 and 40 percent. (The establishment is strong; one man can only do so much.) But if Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich win? Less than 5 percent. If Obama is reelected? Less than 1 percent.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Oh I hear ya, I'm just saying that there is at least one option out there where America has some hope. And it's terribly unfortunate that he has such a small chance of winning, for the reasons you listed.

 

The way I look at it, the chances of some real, positive good coming to this country if Ron Paul is elected is somewhere between 30 and 40 percent. (The establishment is strong; one man can only do so much.) But if Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich win? Less than 5 percent. If Obama is reelected? Less than 1 percent.

 

Santorum? That crazy nut would take us farther down the rabbit hole than anything Obama is going to do. Santorum would have us in two more wars with North Korea and Iran within a year of being elected if he's allowed to have his way.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Santorum? That crazy nut would take us farther down the rabbit hole than anything Obama is going to do. Santorum would have us in two more wars with North Korea and Iran within a year of being elected if he's allowed to have his way.

 

Don't forget he wants to fuck with Venezuela and Cuba as well. Oh, and turn us into a theocracy.

[Shotgun 442]

But if Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich win? Less than 5 percent. If Obama is reelected? Less than 1 percent.

 

I think they're all 1%. A lot of the stuff Obama has passed that people are pissed about have been talked about amongst Republicans since 9/11. They certainly don't seem to have a problem with the bill that just passed in the House taking away forms of speech, and they for sure never had a problem with being able to detain who they want, when they want, without trial. They constantly call Obama names but one of the only reasons I ever hear for why he sucks as a President is the bailouts and "obamacare," which is laughable. I guarantee a Republican President would have done a bailout. It's easy to bitch about it after the fact. The only difference between Obama and the most likely winner of the Republican nomination, Romney, is Obama "seems" a little less likely to start another war.

[Duck Fallas 209]

I think they're all 1%. A lot of the stuff Obama has passed that people are pissed about have been talked about amongst Republicans since 9/11. They certainly don't seem to have a problem with the bill that just passed in the House taking away forms of speech, and they for sure never had a problem with being able to detain who they want, when they want, without trial. They constantly call Obama names but one of the only reasons I ever hear for why he sucks as a President is the bailouts and "obamacare," which is laughable. I guarantee a Republican President would have done a bailout. It's easy to bitch about it after the fact. The only difference between Obama and the most likely winner of the Republican nomination, Romney, is Obama "seems" a little less likely to start another war.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :allhail: :beerchug2:

 

Thank you for bringing some sense to this board. I get so tired of the anti-Obama, "Ron Paul is God" rhetoric that people spew here. I am just so ignorant of politics, I rarely even comment about it here.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :allhail: :beerchug2:

 

Thank you for bringing some sense to this board. I get so tired of the anti-Obama, "Ron Paul is God" rhetoric that people spew here. I am just so ignorant of politics, I rarely even comment about it here.

 

There really isn't a lot of anti-Obama here, in my honest opinion. A lot of it is anti-establishment. Most members who post post in this part of the board realize that the two-party system is a hoax and that there is little difference between Dems and Rep nowadays.

 

PS - Ron Paul is still a god. He WOULDNT have passed a bailout. And he voted AGAINST HR347. Ron Paul isn't even what people call a republican these days. He more of a Libertarian or old school Republican.

[Duck Fallas 209]

There really isn't a lot of anti-Obama here, in my honest opinion. A lot of it is anti-establishment. Most members who post post in this part of the board realize that the two-party system is a hoax and that there is little difference between Dems and Rep nowadays.

 

PS - Ron Paul is still a god. He WOULDNT have passed a bailout. And he voted AGAINST HR347. Ron Paul isn't even what people call a republican these days. He more of a Libertarian or old school Republican.

Honestly, if Ron Paul were running under any other political banner, I would likely vote for him. But I will NEVER vote republican.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Honestly, if Ron Paul were running under any other political banner, I would likely vote for him. But I will NEVER vote republican.

 

That's part of the problem, imo. I am more Republican leaning, but I could cross party lines if the right candidate came along.

 

And make no mistake, I am not Republican like Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum are Republican.

 

Like Ron Paul, it's more Libertarian. Very conservative (unlike Santorum who is "conservative" but wants WWIII and turn us into a theocracy).

 

Get our troops home. Limit federal government control on our lives. State Rights. Return to the gold standard and increase our dollars value. Secure our borders. etc etc etc

 

I love JFK. He might have been a bit of a sleezy individual. And while I can't agree or support all of his politics, I do favor him more so than not. I'd take him over anybody (outside of Paul) we have today.

 

I won't let myself punish a candidate because of their skin color or the party they belong to.

[Duck Fallas 209]

I am strongly Liberal (as if you couldn't tell) though I do have some more conservative leanings:

 

1. Huge fan of Reagan

 

2. Support our death Penalty 1000%

 

3. Support the right for every American to bear arms.

 

Honestly, I am not sure how much, if at all, those make me slightly conservative.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Not to change the subject away from Ron Paul (which I hate doing), but I war to address the original issue presented here. So Obama sits down to make some cuts (shocking). Why does he have to look at cutting any health benefits? I would much rather that he look at cutting some of the billions of dollars that we are spending on making more h- and a-bombs. As a libertarian (little 'l') I support a strong defense, but how many nukes do we need? We have so many that we are never going to use and we will just end up blowing them up in New Mexico to watch how cool it looks. Let's bring the troops home, put them on the borders, and stop making nukes. The ones we already have are enough to stop countries from attacking us.

 

And then everyone can keep their health benefits.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Honestly, if Ron Paul were running under any other political banner, I would likely vote for him. But I will NEVER vote republican.

 

I'm sorry, but that is an incredibly dumb reason not to vote for Ron Paul. I am a strong conservative, a real conservative, but if a Democrat showed up who agreed with my principles, and actually followed the constitution, like Ron Paul, then I would vote for them. Merely because they were registered as a Democrat would not keep me from voting for them, and just because Paul is registered as a Republican shouldn't keep you from voting for him.

 

If you think he isn't worthy of being President because of his ideas, and what he would implement, fine. We can agree to disagree. But not voting for him merely because he's running as a Republican? That's stupid. Vote based on his ideology and his principles, not on what party he runs with.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Not an Obama supporter but you guys have to keep in mind that all Obama can do is sign legislation. He didn't actually come up with the bill.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Not an Obama supporter but you guys have to keep in mind that all Obama can do is sign legislation. He didn't actually come up with the bill.

 

If Obama vetoes the bill, does it still go into effect?

[BwareDWare94 723]

I'm sorry, but that is an incredibly dumb reason not to vote for Ron Paul. I am a strong conservative, a real conservative, but if a Democrat showed up who agreed with my principles, and actually followed the constitution, like Ron Paul, then I would vote for them. Merely because they were registered as a Democrat would not keep me from voting for them, and just because Paul is registered as a Republican shouldn't keep you from voting for him.

 

If you think he isn't worthy of being President because of his ideas, and what he would implement, fine. We can agree to disagree. But not voting for him merely because he's running as a Republican? That's stupid. Vote based on his ideology and his principles, not on what party he runs with.

 

There is no dumb reason not to vote for Ron Paul, because he has 0% chance of winning. Even if he somehow got on the ballot, it just wouldn't happen. Would I vote for him if he had a chance? Absolutely, but he doesn't, so I can't consider doing so.

[WindyCitySports 407]

There is no dumb reason not to vote for Ron Paul, because he has 0% chance of winning. Even if he somehow got on the ballot, it just wouldn't happen. Would I vote for him if he had a chance? Absolutely, but he doesn't, so I can't consider doing so.

How about voting on your principals rather than voting for who can win?

 

And in the most recent poll, Paul beats Obama 43-41.

Edited March 3, 2012 by WindyCitySports