And the cuts begin

Well I guess our President got the big pic and now will not ask private insurance companies to pay for the vets medical problems that occurred while on duty.

I am glad he changed the direction...to me it was hypocritical to even pose this as a viable option...this is a man who stated we need to do right by them and then thought he could skate this by!
 
Well where is also the money going to come from to support our growing welfare state? We've got to find the money from someone to pay for people who do not contribute to society.
 
Obviously the salt marsh mouse should pay for it :shake:
 
Maybe the Salt Marsh Mouse's sponsor can leave Air Force 3 at Andrews for a few weekends and save a few bucks flying coach like every military flight I ever took.:rolleyes:
 
Not unpatriotic.....un-American! As bad as she is...someone elected her, how is that possible!

No fear she'll be reelected when ACORN has their hands in the Census.


I do love how the federal government apparently can't handle Veteran's healthcare, but "we" want to nationalize the who things for the entire United States.

Luckily, there won't be any money left, but we'll have another Doomsday evening national address saying it needs to be passed. Let's see how much no existant money we can spend in the first 100 days....we still have plenty of days after that. I was going to do my taxes, but I decided if I'm ever going to be in government, paying taxes isn't important.
 
now you see it, now you dont

absolutely amazing....just like I said
 
Am I imagining things, but is our President constantly addressing the public via the airwaves more than any other President? Isn't this going to be his 3rd address to the nation since he took office? That does not include his Leno appearance. Hate to say, but going on Leno as a President feels a little degrading to the office...not trying to put him on a pedestal, but reality is Jay Leno also interviews Jack Hanna, we are not talking about serious journalism. He is no longer a candidate, and now he is our President. This media barrage is because he doesn't have enough support for his programs/policies which is scary since the honeymoon typically lasts 100 days and we are at 60.

Back on topic...the VA plan went down in flames very quickly...my guess for the next round of saving money will be closing the base gas stations. Think about it, the gas is cheaper for tax reasons, by closing them down the govt could recoup more taxes.
 
Last edited:
WayneH, you do not seem to have the option of private messaging. I have sent you an email instead. If you would like to private message, let me know as I can probably help in seeing it set up. If not, no worries. I just wanted to make sure you knew that you could if you wanted the option.

Sorry for the interruption of the thread. Carry on! :smile:

WayneH, please hit the "contact us" button at the bottom of our home page and you can put my name in the Re: line for me to receive any responses you may wish to send my way. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
...my guess for the next round of saving money will be closing the base gas stations. Think about it, the gas is cheaper for tax reasons, by closing them down the govt could recoup more taxes.

Actually - the Gas is (by law)- is indexed to the local price of gas and is not cheaper on post than in the surrounding area. Go do some comparison shopping- Class VI store is definitely cheaper and the commissary generally cheaper, Gas- nope. So if you want to raise money for the Government - go after the Class VI operation or the commissary.
 
Well I don't know about gas indexing, but it is always a few cents cheaper then the off-base stations everywhere I have been. As for the Commisary and class six please do not give this current bunch in Washington any ideas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WayneH, you do not seem to have the option of private messaging. I have sent you an email instead. If you would like to private message, let me know as I can probably help in seeing it set up. If not, no worries. I just wanted to make sure you knew that you could if you wanted the option.

Sorry for the interruption of the thread. Carry on! :smile:

WayneH, please hit the "contact us" button at the bottom of our home page and you can put my name in the Re: line for me to receive any responses you may wish to send my way. Thanks!

I replied to your private email in kind

Thanks,
W
 
The Obama Administration just ditched the proposal for this.

So, Veterans still get the same healthcare.

I'd give you a source, but I saw it in the local newspaper, and don't feel like looking for it online.

SO.... GOOD NEWS!
 
From Army Times:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/03/military_obama_vetsinsurance_031909w/

White House and VA sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said billing private insurance to try to collect some of the costs of VA-provided health care for service-connected medical issues was never a formal budget proposal, just one of many ideas being tossed around as part of a discussion of untried options for cutting the government’s health care costs.

Just_A_Mom said:
This won't go anywhere, it will be dead on arrival in committee if it ever gets there.

Good call, JAM.
 
In the initial post of this thread and the cuts begin Pima alludes that erosion of benefits are about to begin with the ‘salt marsh mouse’ politics of the current administration:

The one most of interest to Retired Military is in Article 189. If approved by Congress the first assault wave would hit the beaches in 2011 and would hit hard. It would initiate cost sharing to require retirees to pay the first $525 of medical cost and 50% of the next $4,725 for a first year cost of $2,888 per person. It would be indexed to increase with inflation.


Military retirement healthcare has been on the radar screen for quite a while. However, MOAA, American Legion, and the VFW, among others, are quite powerful lobbies. The only thing to come out of the Bush Administration’s initial attempt to cause retirees employed in the private sector to be forced to use private insurance is as follows, effective commencing in 2008, making it illegal for an employee to give financial incentives for an employee to opt out of the employer’s health plan in favor of Tricare.

http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/publications/legal-alert.aspx?ID=116

Section 707 of the Act amends Chapter 55 of Title 10 of the United States Code to add new Section 1097c. This new code section, which is effective beginning January 1, 2008, provides the following –
• A TRICARE Eligible Employee must be given the opportunity to elect to participate in the group health plan offered by his or her employer in the same manner and to the same extent as similarly situated employees of the employer who are not TRICARE Eligible Employees.
• An employer may not offer a TRICARE Eligible Employee any financial or other incentive for the TRICARE Eligible Employee not to enroll (or to terminate enrollment) in the employer’s group health plan. In applying this rule, the similar provisions prohibiting financial and other incentives for purposes of the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) rules shall apply to TRICARE.

The following links provide quite a history of subsequent attempts by DoD itself, not a 'salt marsh mouse' or any other administration, to limit Tricare benefits for retirees. In FY 2000, DoD health care budget was 17.4 billion. By 2005, due to Tricare for Life and a few other reasons, it had doubled to 35.4 billion. DoD suggested a 9.8 billion savings over the next five years by raising both the deductible and medication copay. Quite a savings for such a small sacrifice. Wrong. The majority of the savings, over 6 billion, would be in the savings realized by ‘forcing’ 500,000 working retirees out of Tricare and into their employer’s health plan. Kind of a back door approach to savings, don't you think? Punishing everyone for the benefit of forcing a half million who have comparable private insurance to use it. Thank goodness Congress killed it. Just keep in mind that it was DoD, operating under a fixed budget that proposed it.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-647

Unfortunately, it is not dead. Below are links to the FY 2008 budget and the 2009 budget where DoD is continuing to propose increased deductibles and copays, knowing that their real savings will be in getting retirees not to use Tricare at all.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/02/military_tricarefees_022708/

http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=1522&issueID=97

If Tricare could come up with a plan where working retirees could take advantage of their employer plan and not have an additional out-of-pocket expenses, to me, it is a no brainer. Don't shoot me. I am only the messenger. The results of a DoD-mandated Task Force:

http://www.dodfuturehealthcare.net/images/103-06-2-Home-Task_Force_FINAL_REPORT_122007.pdf

There are coordination issues for the group of military retirees under age 65
who have access to TRICARE and are also employed and who have access to their
employers’ health insurance plan. One-fourth of retirees do not have access to
private employer insurance. For these individuals, TRICARE is clearly their
main and only health coverage, and there are no issues of coordination. However,
estimates from a 2006 survey of military retirees suggest that even though 65 percent
of retirees under the age of 65, and 58 percent of their dependents, are eligible for
insurance from the retiree’s employer, only 40 percent elect private coverage for
themselves, while 29 percent elect dependent coverage. This suggests that the
majority (60 percent) of retirees who are eligible for private insurance through their
employer are instead using TRICARE as a primary payer. For these individuals, DoD
pays all medical costs, even though they are employed and have access to employer
health benefits.

Congress designed TRICARE to be a second payer, and most retirees use it this way.
However, TRICARE cannot act as a second payer if it is not aware of the retirees’
employer insurance, and retirees may choose to use whichever coverage is most
advantageous for a particular episode of medical care, which could result in lessthan-
optimal health care. Still other retirees are eligible for medical insurance
through a private employer, but voluntarily choose to drop that coverage or not
access it when available and use TRICARE. The number of retirees in this group
is substantial.
The Task Force believes that steps should be taken to better coordinate health
insurance for those under-65 retirees with both TRICARE and private employer
insurance. For these individuals, the goal is to ensure that the retiree relies on only
one insurance plan, and hence one set of providers, with TRICARE acting as no
more than a second payer. Better coordination could help hold down the growth in
DoD medical costs while also improving health care.
 
Last edited:
There's way too many variables. Since retiring, I've had a couple of different jobs. The 1st; a fortune 500 company. Gave me medical benefits as part of my package. NO PREMIUMS and the co-pay/deductibles were about the same as Tricare. So I used the employee plan and my wife used mine and didn't use hers; because hers had a significant premium payments. And we didn't sign up for Tricare at all. A Few years later I left and moved on to a new company. (My current). Their employee medical plan for family coverage is about $200 a month premiums. Now I know some people would think that's very good. But why in the world would I pay $2,400 a year out of my pocket when I'm entitled to Tricare at a fraction of the yearly premiums. Thus; now I don't use employee health plan at all and use only tricare. That is the true benefit of spending decades in the military. HAVING A CHOICE. To take away that choice and say I would have to pay the premium and use my employer's health care plan is pure Bull. Yea, it would have been Ok if I was at my old company. But most companies don't have true free medical. Even Tricare isn't free. There's still deductibles and co-pays. The military member/retired has EARNED the right to choose what is best for them. We don't need someone in Washington D.C. telling us what we should or shouldn't do. Not with a benefit that they've already lied to us about numerous times in the past.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's way too many variables.

Even Tricare isn't free. There's still deductibles and co-pays.

The military member/retired has EARNED the right to choose what is best for them.

We don't need someone in Washington D.C. telling us what we should or shouldn't do. Not with a benefit that they've already lied to us about numerous times in the past.

You are absolutely correct. There are many variables. DoD is attempting to force us to look more closely at those variables.

Not sure we have earned a right to a choice. Medical care yes; a choice, maybe not.

If you will read the links, for the past 3 years, DoD, not the 'someones' in Washington, has been attempting to curb health care costs. The 'someones' in Washington have been curtailing these proposed changes. Might not happen much longer.

Tricare deductables and copays are the same that they were back when the program was initiated, not increasing with inflation or the changing landscape of medical care. We are due for an increase. An increase that will drive working retirees into the private sector. I would rather see a proactive effort to help those working retirees utilize the private sector to which they are legally entitled than to raise rates for everyone.

With that said, we are probably agreeing to disagree on this. Really, I just want to point out the sources of and the reasons for the attempted increase. Even though I too was disappointed with the election results, I realize that the current administration has their work cut out for them and need our support. Also, I don't want to see them saddled with false accusations of not supporting the military.
 
I totally disagree with most of what this current Administration stands for, and is doing on every matter but, oldgrad makes a fair assessment of the medical situation and I have to agree. The civilian medical care is a paid benefit and perk of a job. I've heard some here say that their employer pays their Medical, no they don't! You pay for it!

This issue worked both ways for Obama, it was a smoke screen to divert attention from the other activities running wild in Washington; with an eye on ultimately nationalizing medical care down the road using the military as a pawn placing the issue out as greed.
 
The civilian medical care is a paid benefit and perk of a job. I've heard some here say that their employer pays their Medical, no they don't! You pay for it!

Maximus,

As an owner of a business, I can assure you I write a check every month to the health care provider for medical, dental and eye care. It's very expensive, and not always appreciated by the employees. I spend about 12.5K per year, per employee.

Some companies offer "no benefits" some offer "shared expense" some offer "fully paid by company". So it's hard to put it into a blanket category that employees pay for the benefits, because though in some cases they may be paying for their own, I believe in most cases it's a shared expense with the employer, and in fewer cases fully paid by the employer.

I have a few employees who declined the benefits I offer because they are fully covered under their spouses package and their spouse works for a much larger company than mine. So they are being nice, and sparing me the expense that I would otherwise incur. I think these employees also understand that I'm not required to offer any benefits, and if they can help spare the company an expense, it helps us all, especially in this economy.

My brother works for DoE, and he's retired Navy. If I recall, he doesn't use any of his retirement benefits because of his coverage from DoE.

I think it's a case by case for most folks, depending on what their alternatives are. I really feel for the folks that have no coverage at all. That must be a tough spot to be in.

jb
 
Maximus,

As an owner of a business, I can assure you I write a check every month to the health care provider for medical, dental and eye care. It's very expensive, and not always appreciated by the employees. I spend about 12.5K per year, per employee.

Some companies offer "no benefits" some offer "shared expense" some offer "fully paid by company". So it's hard to put it into a blanket category that employees pay for the benefits, because though in some cases they may be paying for their own, I believe in most cases it's a shared expense with the employer, and in fewer cases fully paid by the employer.

I have a few employees who declined the benefits I offer because they are fully covered under their spouses package and their spouse works for a much larger company than mine. So they are being nice, and sparing me the expense that I would otherwise incur. I think these employees also understand that I'm not required to offer any benefits, and if they can help spare the company an expense, it helps us all, especially in this economy.

My brother works for DoE, and he's retired Navy. If I recall, he doesn't use any of his retirement benefits because of his coverage from DoE.

I think it's a case by case for most folks, depending on what their alternatives are. I really feel for the folks that have no coverage at all. That must be a tough spot to be in.

jb


If that's the case then, some of your other employees are helping to pay for the employees that do take your company paid for Health Care.

I'm not trying to be rude but, if you don't understand that, then you need to speak to your accountant.
 
Not the case.

8 Years ago, I made a decision to offer full benefits to my employees. I pay a flat rate per year, per employee, billed monthly. This is enrolled employees.

If an employee doesn't enroll, he/she is not helping the other employees in any way. I still pay the same rate per employee, per year, billed monthly.

As a company, I can offer the employees full coverage (no deductions), or I can do as many do and pay 1/2 and deduct 1/2 from the employee.

If I did the split, then the same goes, non enrolled employees have no effect on enrolled, because my rate from the health care provider is based on enrolled employees.

When an employee chooses to not enroll, the winner is the company as I can't choose which employees are covered. If I offer to one, I must give to all. But if the company covers 100% of the expense, a non enrolled employee saves the company the amount the company would be paying to cover that employee.

So that was my only point.

And not to worry, I didn't take your comment as rude. Perhaps the plan your company has is charging the employees. Not all health plans are equal after all.

All the best,
JB
 
Back
Top