PDA

View Full Version : TriCare increases proposed by President Obama



tiredretiredE7
04-10-2013, 08:19 PM
Even TriCare standard has proposed rate increases. First President Obama took your TA and now is attempting to raise rates for all of TriCare. Thanks to the useful idiots who are AD or retired and voted for President Obama. i will make it simple for AD voters. Democrats cut military pay and your future retirement benefits, Republicans add or increase your military pay or benefits. Hopefully the Republicans will make the changes are per the previous years.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130410/NEWS05/304100016/Capped-pay-raise-huge-Tricare-fee-hikes-new-budget-plan

Tak
04-10-2013, 08:32 PM
I am not sure, but I thought I read somewhere, vets with XX% disability would be exempt from increase in rates.

Jamethon
04-10-2013, 08:56 PM
Wait, President Obama took away TA? I thought that was each specific military branch?

When did the democrats cut our pay? Or are you saying that we are getting lower increases in pay? That is a huge difference with strategic wording you have there.

Drackore
04-10-2013, 09:15 PM
Yea brother, I am a Republican and that's just a load of nonsense. Obama might have been the brainchild behind sequestration, but his only fault is letting the idiots that made the decisions that put us in this mess make the decisions on where to cut. Republicans love the sequestration because it forces the cuts in spending with Dems powerless to stop it. Again though, Congress is just as much to blame for it all, because as you notice none of these fatcats in Washington or the Pentagon are suffering - just US.

So Obama's idea, backed by Republicans set in. Then they all said to the department leads - make the cuts. Well the department leads ARE THE CAUSE of the waste and abuse of taxpayer money. Where are you going to cut? You going to cut YOUR staff, YOUR benefits? Hell no. Cut from the bottom. Take from the little guy. And so they did. Each branch of service that cut TA cut TA on their own, knowing that "the little guy" - who are large in number, would raise a VERY loud stink. This is nothing more than a political play to Congress and Obama to get them to change their line of thinking. It backfired, because Congress how now said "Restore it, but we aren't funding it". That means the cuts will have to come from somewhere else. Commissaries are already bleeding out by cutting hours to all their part timers. So it has to come from something else. DFACs? Fitness centers? Limited operating hours for base facilities like the BX, etc where the base has to pay for utilities? More augmentee taskings to fill in for slots that get cut or trimmed? (I remember at my previous base military members had to staff the School Age program)

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a shit move to raise Tricare premiums. All these thoughtless think tanks that are collecting big checks from people asking for THEIR opinion are forming opinions based on what their employers want to hear. Why? So they get more business. If you pay me MILLIONS of dollars to "think tank" something...if I want you to come back to me later, I am going to make sure you are happy with what I have "tanked". These people completely leave out the constant deployments, time away from families, poor living conditions, poor health and sanitation, overexposure to physical and mental traumas, etc.

At the same time, a few bucks more in a hike isn't going to kill anybody. It's going to happen someday...we can't stop it.

My opinion on this is that the hikes should be tiered. Retired Generals should get a larger hike than a retired E6. Disabled retirees and veterans should get no hike, or the lowest of the low (basically a percentage rate of retirement..say 1-2% of retired pay).

But then, my stance is always lead from the front. Want to raise ours? Raise yours first. Cut our benefits? Cut yours first.

VFFTSGT
04-10-2013, 11:21 PM
Yea brother, I am a Republican and that's just a load of nonsense. Obama might have been the brainchild behind sequestration, but his only fault is letting the idiots that made the decisions that put us in this mess make the decisions on where to cut. Republicans love the sequestration because it forces the cuts in spending with Dems powerless to stop it. Again though, Congress is just as much to blame for it all, because as you notice none of these fatcats in Washington or the Pentagon are suffering - just US.

So Obama's idea, backed by Republicans set in. Then they all said to the department leads - make the cuts. Well the department leads ARE THE CAUSE of the waste and abuse of taxpayer money. Where are you going to cut? You going to cut YOUR staff, YOUR benefits? Hell no. Cut from the bottom. Take from the little guy. And so they did. Each branch of service that cut TA cut TA on their own, knowing that "the little guy" - who are large in number, would raise a VERY loud stink. This is nothing more than a political play to Congress and Obama to get them to change their line of thinking. It backfired, because Congress how now said "Restore it, but we aren't funding it". That means the cuts will have to come from somewhere else. Commissaries are already bleeding out by cutting hours to all their part timers. So it has to come from something else. DFACs? Fitness centers? Limited operating hours for base facilities like the BX, etc where the base has to pay for utilities? More augmentee taskings to fill in for slots that get cut or trimmed? (I remember at my previous base military members had to staff the School Age program)

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a shit move to raise Tricare premiums. All these thoughtless think tanks that are collecting big checks from people asking for THEIR opinion are forming opinions based on what their employers want to hear. Why? So they get more business. If you pay me MILLIONS of dollars to "think tank" something...if I want you to come back to me later, I am going to make sure you are happy with what I have "tanked". These people completely leave out the constant deployments, time away from families, poor living conditions, poor health and sanitation, overexposure to physical and mental traumas, etc.

At the same time, a few bucks more in a hike isn't going to kill anybody. It's going to happen someday...we can't stop it.

My opinion on this is that the hikes should be tiered. Retired Generals should get a larger hike than a retired E6. Disabled retirees and veterans should get no hike, or the lowest of the low (basically a percentage rate of retirement..say 1-2% of retired pay).

But then, my stance is always lead from the front. Want to raise ours? Raise yours first. Cut our benefits? Cut yours first.

Maybe not fly B-2's around the world just to piss off another country?!

Or maybe not have spent your money at the proposed increased spending limits all year knowing sequestration was a posibility... :shocked

Tak
04-11-2013, 12:06 AM
the increases are not trivial
http://www.military.com/benefits/tricare/retiree/proposed-tricare-fee-changes.html

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.

Airborne
04-11-2013, 12:49 AM
So health care should be free?

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
04-11-2013, 12:52 AM
Soooo time to stop having kids, eh?

OtisRNeedleman
04-11-2013, 01:22 AM
WTF? Wasn't there a law just recently passed limiting Tricare annual premium increases to the percentage of the annual retired pay COLA? I can proudly say I never voted for this guy, either time. Hopefully the House will put the kibosh on this financial rape attempt.

imnohero
04-11-2013, 01:24 AM
Not trivial is such a relativistic term, and consequently is almost meaningless. The article you quoted uses percentage increases, and cites what a 30 year retired full-bird colonel would have to pay (which is still less per year than any civilian policy). The average 20 year retired MSgt would see an increase for family coverage from $538/year to $580/year in 2014, and to $750 per year in 2018. That is $61 a month.

The headline "HUGE INCREASES" means a minimum of $1 per year and maximum of $250 per year for preminums. Co-pays go from $12 to $16 dollars. Prescriptions already went from $3 to $8 co-pays. I would not call these huge, I would call them normal and appropriate.

I'm so tired of hearing the rhetorical spin about this. These increases are not "huge" or "crippling." Retirees under 65 are not going to end up homeless or hungry because they have to pay a few bucks more a month for their medical premiums. Those over 65 are exempt from the premium increases and are facing about $150 bucks (capped) extra out of pocket costs. This is not "the end of tricare."

OtisRNeedleman
04-11-2013, 01:34 AM
Not trivial is such a relativistic term, and consequently is almost meaningless. The article you quoted uses percentage increases, and cites what a 30 year retired full-bird colonel would have to pay (which is still less per year than any civilian policy). The average 20 year retired MSgt would see an increase for family coverage from $538/year to $580/year in 2014, and to $750 per year in 2018. That is $61 a month.

The headline "HUGE INCREASES" means a minimum of $1 per year and maximum of $250 per year for preminums. Co-pays go from $12 to $16 dollars. Prescriptions already went from $3 to $8 co-pays. I would not call these huge, I would call them normal and appropriate.

I'm so tired of hearing the rhetorical spin about this. These increases are not "huge" or "crippling." Retirees under 65 are not going to end up homeless or hungry because they have to pay a few bucks more a month for their medical premiums. Those over 65 are exempt from the premium increases and are facing about $150 bucks (capped) extra out of pocket costs. This is not "the end of tricare."

So why are new rate increases being proposed so very soon after a law limiting the amount of premium increases was passed? Guess someone in Washington believes he can balance the national budget on the backs and other organs of military retirees. Easy to do so when you've never spent a minute in uniform.

tiredretiredE7
04-11-2013, 01:51 AM
Not trivial is such a relativistic term, and consequently is almost meaningless. The article you quoted uses percentage increases, and cites what a 30 year retired full-bird colonel would have to pay (which is still less per year than any civilian policy). The average 20 year retired MSgt would see an increase for family coverage from $538/year to $580/year in 2014, and to $750 per year in 2018. That is $61 a month.

The headline "HUGE INCREASES" means a minimum of $1 per year and maximum of $250 per year for preminums. Co-pays go from $12 to $16 dollars. Prescriptions already went from $3 to $8 co-pays. I would not call these huge, I would call them normal and appropriate.

I'm so tired of hearing the rhetorical spin about this. These increases are not "huge" or "crippling." Retirees under 65 are not going to end up homeless or hungry because they have to pay a few bucks more a month for their medical premiums. Those over 65 are exempt from the premium increases and are facing about $150 bucks (capped) extra out of pocket costs. This is not "the end of tricare."

I never claimed this to be the end of TriCare but this administration would love to end TriCare and put all vets in ObamaCare. Tak's post is correct and 345% increase is a huge increase not matter how you spin it. I am thinking of the retired TSgt with a family of four, 2 cars and a house payment. That retired TSgt's TriCare increase will be huge. My point is only AD useful idiots vote democratic and obviously do not understand how democrats have always cut back on AD and veteran benefits/pay.

Tak
04-11-2013, 03:14 AM
mine will go from 460 to 1523 in 5 years
again, not trivial.

imnohero
04-11-2013, 04:02 AM
I never claimed this to be the end of TriCare but this administration would love to end TriCare and put all vets in ObamaCare. Tak's post is correct and 345% increase is a huge increase not matter how you spin it. I am thinking of the retired TSgt with a family of four, 2 cars and a house payment. That retired TSgt's TriCare increase will be huge. My point is only AD useful idiots vote democratic and obviously do not understand how democrats have always cut back on AD and veteran benefits/pay.

The only people paying the 345% increase are flag grades officers. Most of the enlisted will be on the lower end of the scale at around a 100% increase in 5 years. And while a 100% increase sounds large, increasing the premium from 500 to 1000 a YEAR is not that big a deal. And it certainly won't get any sympathy from most civilians, no matter how "pro-military" they are, when they are paying 500 a MONTH for family medical care and facing the same 100% increase in premiums over the same 5 years.

Blame the democrats if you want to, blame the republicans, blame the voters, I don't care. This is not about fault, this about the reality that the Tricare system can not continue to function with the status quo.

FLAPS
04-11-2013, 10:11 AM
WTF? Wasn't there a law just recently passed limiting Tricare annual premium increases to the percentage of the annual retired pay COLA? I can proudly say I never voted for this guy, either time. Hopefully the House will put the kibosh on this financial rape attempt.

Yep....all as The White House and MSNBC continue to wave their "Support Our Troops" banners while they make no mention of this budget proposal. We've all been duped.

FLAPS
04-11-2013, 10:16 AM
The only people paying the 345% increase are flag grades officers. Most of the enlisted will be on the lower end of the scale at around a 100% increase in 5 years.

Ah....the "we'll only tax the 'rich'" scheme to minimize resistance. That's very cleaver! Also, only 100% increase in five years? Not too bad, except when does it end? I've always believed that MAJOR, unpopular changes are most successful when implemented incrementally. You know, just small, unoticeable changes over time until you finally reach your real goal, which is MAJOR change.

tiredretiredE7
04-11-2013, 10:24 AM
Yep....all as The White House and MSNBC continue to wave their "Support Our Troops" banners while they make no mention of this budget proposal. We've all been duped.

Some have been duped. This is what is in the President's budget proposal and has not been voted on or approved by congress. Just for the record, President Obama's budgets usually don't receive any votes for either party in congress because the President’s previous budgets are so detrimental to the economy or contain provisions that are not pro-military that democratic congressmen fear the re-election implications of backing the President's budget.

Remember this in the 2014 congressional elections. Hopefully the Republicans will win back the Senate as well as the House. This would be Obama’s worst nightmare.

TJMAC77SP
04-11-2013, 10:50 AM
Folks, I am not sure of anyone's personal wealth but I think a 100% increase in the cost of anything over a five year period is the very definition of huge. Trying to spin it otherwise is just silly.

You can argue whether it is right to increase Tricare costs but let's keep the arguments within the realm of reason.

imnohero
04-11-2013, 01:35 PM
Folks, I am not sure of anyone's personal wealth but I think a 100% increase in the cost of anything over a five year period is the very definition of huge. Trying to spin it otherwise is just silly.

You can argue whether it is right to increase Tricare costs but let's keep the arguments within the realm of reason.

Percentages and terms like "huge" are relative. Their use is absolutely intended to put "spin" into the conversation.

A 100% increase in the cost of a $1 product means it costs $2. Relative to that product only, that is a large increase. Relative to the $1000 in my bank account, it's very small. I recently got a 100% increase in the interest I get on a bank account, it went from 1.25% to 2.5%...so instead of getting 13 cents a month in interest, I get 26 cents. Not "huge".

I'm all for keeping reason in the conversation, that's why I keep looking actual numbers instead of just accepting the terms used in the media.

Tak
04-11-2013, 02:12 PM
hero, its much easier saying "i was wrong"

RFD, that is an enlisted phrase.
i heard 1 officer utter it in 20yrs.

TJMAC77SP
04-11-2013, 02:19 PM
Percentages and terms like "huge" are relative. Their use is absolutely intended to put "spin" into the conversation.

A 100% increase in the cost of a $1 product means it costs $2. Relative to that product only, that is a large increase. Relative to the $1000 in my bank account, it's very small. I recently got a 100% increase in the interest I get on a bank account, it went from 1.25% to 2.5%...so instead of getting 13 cents a month in interest, I get 26 cents. Not "huge".

I'm all for keeping reason in the conversation, that's why I keep looking actual numbers instead of just accepting the terms used in the media.

I will buy that. But I think an increase from $460 to $ 1523 is indeed huge (with no spin).

Now my increase (if passed) will be 250% but THAT would be spin since I use Tricare Standard and currently don't pay any premiums (other than for my supplement).

Bottom line is that I think both sides are doing some spinning. The cost increases from Obamacare are starting to see the light of day and it seems many are pretty intent on minimizing them (as much as others are looking to shine a spotlight on them).

Tak
04-11-2013, 02:36 PM
how much has tricare and former risen in over 20yrs,
not much because america takes care of its veterans.

fyi, these rate increases will be fought and either
changed or done away with. im thinking TA
is a good offsettimg program to axe, unless
you value extra education over healthcare.

FLAPS
04-11-2013, 03:30 PM
With regard to the whole Tricare discussion, one thing I'd like changed is the term "working age retirees," which seems to be used synonymously with "retirees who have jobs." There is a difference, especially in this economy.

Jamethon
04-11-2013, 05:33 PM
I never claimed this to be the end of TriCare but this administration would love to end TriCare and put all vets in ObamaCare. Tak's post is correct and 345% increase is a huge increase not matter how you spin it. I am thinking of the retired TSgt with a family of four, 2 cars and a house payment. That retired TSgt's TriCare increase will be huge. My point is only AD useful idiots vote democratic and obviously do not understand how democrats have always cut back on AD and veteran benefits/pay.

Are you alluding to a retired TSgt having two car payments? That seems highly irresponsible especially if he doesn't have another job after he retires.

OtisRNeedleman
04-11-2013, 08:13 PM
With regard to the whole Tricare discussion, one thing I'd like changed is the term "working age retirees," which seems to be used synonymously with "retirees who have jobs." There is a difference, especially in this economy.

Indeed. Many of us "working-age retirees" are out of work.

OtisRNeedleman
04-11-2013, 08:14 PM
Some have been duped. This is what is in the President's budget proposal and has not been voted on or approved by congress. Just for the record, President Obama's budgets usually don't receive any votes for either party in congress because the President’s previous budgets are so detrimental to the economy or contain provisions that are not pro-military that democratic congressmen fear the re-election implications of backing the President's budget.

Remember this in the 2014 congressional elections. Hopefully the Republicans will win back the Senate as well as the House. This would be Obama’s worst nightmare.

Then people better get off their asses and vote.