MORE SUPPORT??--The Bush Administration Plans To Triple Our Troops Health Care Costs

[Gimpy]

The Bush Administration Plans To Triple Our Troops Health Care Costs!


Next Tuesday, President Bush will deliver his State of the Union address. If his previous speeches are any guide, he will fill his speech with promises to support the troops:

2002: "Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training and they also deserve another pay raise. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.

2004: My administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.

2005: During this time of war, we must continue to support our military and give them the tools for victory.


While it is quick with rhetorical support, the Bush administration has repeatedly refused to take the actions necessary to provide the troops the resources they need. The latest example comes from the Army Times, which reports that the Pentagon is currently working on a proposal to triple the costs of the military health insurance program (Tricare):


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.


Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the Military Officers Association of America, said it best:

"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."


More soldiers have been taken off the battlefield in Iraq by injuries and illnesses than by enemy fire. An increase in health care costs would be a great burden for these soldiers. Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer recently wrote to President Bush demanding that he disavow the program.

You can help. Already, more than 22,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America have written Congress opposing the initiative. Contact House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and tell them what you think about Bush's proposed policy.

All this should come as no surprise.

After all, in recent years extremist Republican operatives have inverted longstanding principles: that our combat veterans not only should receive the best quality health care and adequate compensation for their illnesses and injuries, but also be accorded a place of honor in political circles. This trend began during the Bush campaign for President in 2000 during the Republican primaries with the ugly insinuations leveled at Senator John McCain, and continued with the slurs against Senators Max Cleland and then in 2003 with John Kerry.

Most military people past and present should have good reason to wonder if the current Bush administration truly values their service beyond its immediate effect on its battlefield of choice. The casting of suspicion and doubt about the actions of veterans who have run against President Bush (and many other republicans) or opposed his policies has been a constant theme of his career. This pattern of denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree risks cheapening the public's appreciation of what it means to serve this great country.

The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them and then failing to take care of them with adequate VA health care funding will eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.

A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line.

Rudyard Kipling summed up it best many years ago.

"An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!"

And hopefully, in the next elections, many more Americans will also.

[reconeil]

Thanks for the info.
Didn't know that The U.S. Military Personnel
now have to pay for Medical Coverage?

For 3 years I never had to pay for such.
Did you have to pay for medical, when you served?

Hell,...recently saw on TV where some making
a-big-deal about military types getting freebie
tummy-tucks,...for that sharp military look.
How could that be?

Neil

[Gimpy]

This increase is for 'retirees'.

Maybe this will help you better understand the problem.


###START####

Posted January 30, 2006


Veterans' 'TRI CARE" health costs could soar

Advocates warn of sharp hike for retirees under proposal

By John Lee
Post-Crescent staff writer


Bob Everson can't understand a tentative Pentagon and Bush administration proposal that would sharply increase the costs military veterans pay for health care.

He earned two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, and is upset with talk among veterans groups that a proposal to double or triple costs for veterans to help pay for other defense programs.

"They said they'd take care of us if we served our time, and now instead of taking care of us they are trying to charge us," Everson, of Appleton, president and interim treasurer of the Fox Valley Vietnam Veterans Association, said Sunday.

Military retirees too young for Medicare are objecting to a proposal being publicized by advocacy groups to double or triple some of their health care costs to pay for other defense programs.

Retirees and military service organizations have started sounding off about the possible increases, which could make in into President Bush's budget proposal on Feb. 6. More than a million retirees under the age of 65 could be caught by the change.

With retiree family members included, the number covered by Tricare, the military health care program, is about 3 million.

Military service organizations say the proposal calls for the annual enrollment fee for the plan known as Tricare Prime to increase substantially in the next three years.

The fee is now $230 for single enlisted and officer retirees, and would rise to $450 for enlisted retirees and $750 for officers.

Family coverage, now $460 a year, would increase to $900 for enlisted retirees and $1,500 for officers, according to the Military Officers Association of America.

A plan called Tricare Standard, which now has free enrollment, would cost $300 for single officers and $600 for family coverage. Enlisted retires would see costs climb to $200 for single coverage and $400 for a family. Also being considered are increases in some pharmacy co-payments.

"My dad is 86 and a veteran and he never drew a penny from the government for anything. The last five years he had to pay to get medication out of the VA," Everson said.

John DeLong, a retired Coast Guard commander and former Appleton police officer who now lives in Kerrville, Texas, said he believes the increases would affect Korean and World War II veterans more than recent retirees.

"That's going to hurt them big time," said DeLong, who retired from the Coast Guard in 1991 after 25 years of service. "The (coverage) increase is going to be substantial."

He said the proposal breaks promises made when people enlisted. "In the '90s, it wasn't signed in blood. Maybe we were more realistic and we saw the handwriting on the wall. But those Korean vets, it's going to hit them hard."

Retirement benefits were one of the things that attracted people when he was a recruiter, he said. "I don't know if it is the biggest attraction. Probably today the retirement itself is one of the things."I think (veterans) feel like they are being sold out," said DeLong, a member of the Military Officers Association of America.

Many retirees see the Tricare benefit as payback for active-duty careers that last 20 to 30 years and frequently call for sacrifice and hazardous work.

"I certainly don't feel very rich," said Jackie E. Turpin, 43, of Sterling, Va., who retired in 2004 after 23 years as a Navy corpsman. "I'm now self-employed and the only thing I feel rich about is how richly I'm being backstabbed.

[reconeil]

Thanks for additional and detailed info
about Medical Coverage and/or that:

Single Enlisted Retirees will soon pay........$450 yearly
and
Enlisted Retirees' Family Coverage will be $900 yearly.

Also that: Single Officer Retirees will pay...$750 yearly
and
The Officer Retiree Family Plan will cost......$1500 yearly.

All the above seem like some pretty-sweet deals
for Medical Coverage to both wife and myself, since
were both retired, without partime jobs, and
thus solely collecting Social Security.

Therefore, and since I have $938.40 yearly deducted
from my Social Security for Medicare,
and
my wife similarly has a yearly $938.40 deducted for
Medicare,...I'm sure you can understand why not all
that overly concerned about the numbers you gave.

Damn. Wife and I pay $1876.80 yearly (plus ever
increasing) for Medicare and/or Medical Coverage.
Such apparently comes to $376.80 MORE than
some WORKING Retired General with a very
large family, whom also quite likely is being paid
rather well for being on some Corporate
Board of Directors somewhere,...WILL NOW PAY.

So,...what's to bitch-about?
All new rates given seem like truly great bargains to
both self and wife,...and quite sensibly and rightfully so.

Neil