Obama to cut military Tricare

[Gina]

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.

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.  

[Eupher]

For a 9-month period in 1999, I actually participated in TriCare as I was unemployed at the time. It was a good thing, as I had to have my gall bladder excised.

But as a general rule, I stay the hell away from ANY "benefit" bequeathed to me by an extremely fickle Congress/administration. To say "Indian-giver" doesn't even begin to cover the depths of their depravity.

You'll note they (Congress) don't cut their benefits, nor do they touch unionized civilian workers' benefits, as stated in the OP.

BOHICA.

[DumbAss Tanker]

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.

For BS comparisons like that, the site ought to call itself 'Free Bacon,' since it's more about pork than truth.  As I posted on CU:

Not that I support Obama's stupid plan, but the comparison here is pretty far off into the total bullshit zone.

The "Unionized civilian defense workers," not all of whom are unionized, already pay quite a bit for theirs, and have deductibles and co-pays to boot; They REALLY pay to keep their health insurance when they retire, unlike, say, the UAW or some State employee systems. What many of them pay in a month for FEHBP-enrolled system coverage would cover retired servicemember and family for a whole year of TriCare Prime (And TriCare Standard, where Prime isn't available, costs nothing on the front end).

I'm definitely not in favor of this craptastic plan, however trying to poor-mouth the military retirees by making the civil service workers the villains is just divisive horseshit, and the writer is either a liar or just doesn't know WTF he is talking about on the civil service end of that comparison.   

[JohnnyReb]

Robbing the rich the 90% that vote republican to give to the poor 90% that vote democrat.

[rich_t]

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

Not that I support this new plan, but the new amount listed above comes to less than $40.00 a week.  I imagine most retired colonels should be able to afford that.