Home  »  Military  »  Obama To Cut Healthcare For Troops

Obama To Cut Healthcare For Troops



Feb 27, 2012 14 Comments ›› Pat Dollard

Free Beacon:

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://touchstonesjests.blogspot.com/ TouchStone

    Despite the fact that “provide for the common defense” is one of the very few DUTIES of the FedGov, King Putt continues to shit all over the warfighters and vets, just so that he can feather the nests of the bureaucraps and faceless bean-counters in the various bloated (non-Constitutional) departments.
    ….yeah, zero surprise.

  • Hazim

    21 years active… I’ve earned it…leave it alone!

  • Jim

    What a simplistic headline to a story.
    Here is the operative sentence in the whole article:
     ”According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a
    family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.”

    Thats right, $460 TOTAL for FAMILY health care coverage for a FULL YEAR for a RETIRED Colonel. $460!!! Full Year!!! Entire family!!!
    Get a grip. Find something real to complain about…it certainly is not health care coverage for the military. And now they want to increase it to $2,000. That still is the best bargain in health care coverage BY FAR in the nation. What do you pay for health care coverage? $15,000? $20,000?

    Here is what the Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush said about health care coverage in the military:
    ‘pension and health care costs are eating the U.S. military alive.’ The military will become what General Motors became- a health care company that sidelines into military activities. So instead of building weapons, we will be paying for health care costs.
    It ain’t free money, pal.

  • Monkey3531

    “According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.”  Two problems here, 1) it’s congressional assessments and 2) this only refers to retired Army colonels.  
      You ever think about all the 18-25 year olds who have been in for a year or two?  Or the 16-17 year olds who might be thinking about signing up?  Or the 28 year old with 8-10 years in deciding if they want to make a career of putting their ass on the line to defend this nation?  No, you do not.  These folks are not making gobs of money, most of them are hardly making any at all.  There are exponentially more people in the service who fall into these categories than the retired Colonel category.  This latest round of BS is going to hurt these people more than it would help reduce costs or whatever nonsense the assclowns in DC are claiming.  
      So your choice of “operative sentence” is wrong.  The headline is spot on in summing up the whole story and is just more proof that the current administration is looking to further debilitate our nations military in pursuit of some crazy ass notion that they have all the right ideas to fix our problems.

  • Jim

     Wrong.
    That is their quote in the sentence, not mine. Tricare, which covers ALL military members, is at $460. For all of them who take part, regardless of rank. Go look it up.
    And guess what? That price has not risen since 1995. Over 15 years ago. How much has your health care costs increased in 15 years?
    Making military members pay something into health care costs has always been the norm. What has not been the norm is keeping what they pay in the same ration to increases in health care costs.
    So get your facts straight. The headline is completely inaccurate.

  • CharleO

    I am a Teamster. Let me negeotiate a contract for the military. Start with double pay across the board. Full benefits. Let the foreign aid take a back seat to the VETS!!!!! Then when the commander makes a mistake we file on it!!!
    CharleO

  • Icorps1970

    When I entered (I was “inducted” actually) the US Military in 1970 I was assured (as was my father in 1944) that I would get free healthcare from the VA for life if Honorably discharged.
    I paid the premium in an infantry company in VN. Dad paid his in the Philippines.  Yet some Fu#cking politician years later decided that we could do without  without if our income was over poverty level. This is BS.
    The military is not like a job in some factory or office. Health care for people on active duty should be free. But then if they do that then the drug addicts and pimps might have their food stamps cut. Can’t have them being malnourished, they vote Democrat after all. But then the veteran is usually treated like a used condom anyway. This has been true all through history.

    How do you pay people back for going on 5 man night ambush again and again? Doing recon in 5 man teams so deep in enemy territory they take their IDs away? Having a “job” where the only source of satisfaction (other than living to see another day) is killing people? Having friends shredded? 
    Suffering injury to some greater or lessor extent, just about everyone in an infantry unit that sees much contact with enemy gets hurt somehow. Getting poisoned by herbicides that by contract had to be harmless, then being denied the ability to sue the contract violators  who poisoned them
    How do you pay people back for 20-30-60 years of nightmares? I know a Chosin Res. (it’s in North Korea BTW) Vet who STILL has nightmares.
    So tell me what is this sort of thing REALLY worth? I was getting 325 a month and all the C rations I could eat. And free health care for life, I thought.
    We seem to have lots of money for the presidents friends and allies here and abroad. Lots of money to bailout banks, lots for money for foreign gov’ts.
    But the Vet does not kick back enough of his benefits to powerful politicians I suppose. The military tends to vote Republican as well.  So the people that have “borne the battle, are just SOL.
    BTW I never paid for healthcare while I was in the Army. If you were sick you went on sick call or the Platoon Medic took care of it.
    So paying has only been “the norm” recently.

  • Jim

    This whole issue is raised because the country is in debt. The Republicans and Democrats in the sequester agreed to cut over $600B from military spending. So all the Generals know cuts are coming, and they want the pain spread around. The last thing they want are the cuts to be just from weapons, or existing armed forces. Therefore, health care.

    The fact remains that health care costs that military personnel pay for is not among the lowest in the country, it IS the lowest in the country. So I will let the Department of Defense speak for me. Health care costs are bankrupting the military. There will be little  money left for weapons eventually…it will just be health care costs. Welcome to the real world- health care costs effect everyone, including the armed forces.
    The extreme cases you speak of are taken care of in the military. The largest, by far, of military personnel never see action, and they are paying $460 per year for a family for health care costs.
    Absolutely unsustainable, and every one knows it. For this to continue, we would have to begin to dissuade people from entering the military, because we as a society will not be able to pay their health costs in perpetuity. The cuts are absolutely reasonable. Just ask Bush’s Secretary of Defense.

  • hammer666

    The headline is sort of inaccurate since other factors take effect, this is perhaps the first time in over 15-18 years(?) that the cost may rise or adjust. But I cant tell you that he (Obama) thinks that he’s causing pain on purpose, and in some areas of this, he is…… Over all, he’s doing this because he feels that “So what? I’m here, Im their boss, I;m defecating on our Constitution and no one has stop me even though the troops are suppose to protect and defend the Constitution from threats like me, they have not called me on it so i assume I can do now what ever the fuck I want to do, laugh at them and continue to be their boss”…. foiks, this exactly what he says and feels in the inner marxist circles. They are laughing at our own armed forces.He will continue to do so after he gets re-elected, so hang on, it’s going to be worse.

  • http://touchstonesjests.blogspot.com/ TouchStone

    Hey, little jimmie, the article – and Congress, obviously – got it wrong.
    That’s the MONTHLY premium, sunshine.
    http://tricare.mil/mybenefit/

    I’m a 24-year retired Infantry NCO, under-60, and I buy PRIVATE insurance because I can’t afford Tricare and the nearest post with hospital facilities is nearly a hundred miles away.

    You want to balance the budget?
    CUT THE WELFARE ENTITLEMENTS TO JUNKIES AND POLITICIANS!

  • Jim

     Hey…Wrong again. Here are the costs as listed on the Tricare website:
    http://www.tricare.mil/tma/tricarecost.aspx
    Please note no cost if active, and if retired, annual charge of $260 ANNUALLY for the member, or $520 ANNUALLY for a family.
    Better re-check your math because you certainly have not bought health insurance in the market place for $260!!! You probably bought it for $15,000. Oops!!

  • http://touchstonesjests.blogspot.com/ TouchStone

    Nice try, buttercup, but YOUR example was of a RETIREE (I just happen to be one), while the COSTS you quoted are for ACTIVE service members.
    …there IS a difference, don’cha know….as in, the availability of on-post medical services…..

    http://www.tricare.mil/mybenefit/home/Medical/Costs/TRICARERetiredReserve?

    ….you were saying…..?

  • Jim

     Wrong again…read the whole page. Half way down, it says “Retirees, Their Family Members, and Others.”And for those who are ‘reading challenged,’ it says “$260 individual, $520 family.” Therefore, costs I quoted ARE in fact for retirees. If you were active military AND retired, thats what you pay. You must not have been (you quoted the Reserve page), so good try at misleading us.  And if you did not mislead, go ahead and continue paying more than you should. Enjoy.

  • http://touchstonesjests.blogspot.com/ TouchStone

     You’ve obviously never served, so I’ll give you a clue, twinkles.
    Look up “Retired Reserve” – the full definition, this time.

    Now go worship at that little altar you got set up in your mom’s basement and leave the real world to the adults.