TRICARE premium increases

[nun]

Secretary Gates is proposing increases to Military TRICARE medical insurance premiums. This comes on the back of all the other attacks on government and state worker benefits. Should we really be making military retirees pay more for their health care?

 

[REWahoo]

Secretary Gates is proposing increases to Military TRICARE medical insurance premiums. This comes on the back of all the other attacks on government and state worker benefits. Should we really be making military retirees pay more for their health care?

What you see as an 'attack' might be viewed quite differently by the general (taxpaying) public. And while I would like to see it unnecessary, I think we must all share the burden - at least in part.

 

[travelover]

In Michigan, pensions used to be tax free up to 45K single / 90K married filing jointly, with no limit on public pensions. The law was just changed, hitting retirees under 65 hardest. I think that military pensions might have slipped through.

It is a trend.

 

[mickeyd]

The monthly increase is only going to be $2.50/$5.00. I have no problem with that. We all have to do our part to balance the budget. Tricare is still the best bargain in medical care by far.

 

[ERD50]

Secretary Gates is proposing increases to Military TRICARE medical insurance premiums. This comes on the back of all the other attacks on government and state worker benefits. Should we really be making military retirees pay more for their health care?

The monthly increase is only going to be $2.50/$5.00.

nun, you started a thread to complain about a $2.50 monthly increase!?!?!

Gee, I'd sure hate to hear about all those 'other attacks' on government and state worker benefits. I don't think I could bear it.

Maybe they should have made the increase to just $4.99 (see this thread)?

-ERD50

 

[52andout]

I heard on NPR that the cost hasn't increased since 1995. Of course we shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of the veterans but it doesn't seem unfair to have a small increase when you are only paying perhaps 10% or less of what most taxpayers pay.

 

[Nords]

Keep in mind that Gates is retiring soon, so he's being used as both the messenger and the whipping boy for all the nasty news that nobody wants to hear, let alone deal with.

He's also been proposing increases in Tricare premiums for just about every year of his tenure, not that Congress has paid any attention to him. But I think he mentioned once that healthcare is 19% of the military's budget, and that includes a huge chunk of retiree healthcare expenses.

Finally, the reason military retirees should be more happy (or less unhappy) with this increase is that future increases will be indexed to inflation. We've been playing "no increase" chicken for over 15 years, and that's a game that we only have to lose once. I'd much rather pay a known increase than to keep playing chicken.

When I blogged about an earlier proposal I got a lot of e-mails from people whose doctors will no longer take Tricare. The unhappy reality is that it doesn't matter what Gates or Congress think-- the doctors are making the decisions for them.

MOAA: As I See It

Proposed Tricare fee hikes | Military Retirement & Financial Independence

 

[donheff]

Keep in mind that Gates is retiring soon, so he's being used as both the messenger and the whipping boy for all the nasty news that nobody wants to hear, let alone deal with.

Yeah, I heard him on NPR yesterday. When he mentioned Tricare I initially thought lets not screw the military on pay. But then when he mentioned what they were proposing (annual costs from $400 to $550 or some such I almost laughed out loud.

 

[nun]

Yeah, I heard him on NPR yesterday. When he mentioned Tricare I initially thought lets not screw the military on pay. But then when he mentioned what they were proposing (annual costs from $400 to $550 or some such I almost laughed out loud.

Me too, my take would be to make the premiums more in line with other federal employees.....an argument could be made to make them higher as obviously the military are a high risk pool.

 

[REWahoo]

Secretary Gates is proposing increases to Military TRICARE medical insurance premiums. This comes on the back of all the other attacks on government and state worker benefits. Should we really be making military retirees pay more for their health care?

Me too, my take would be to make the premiums more in line with other federal employees.....an argument could be made to make them higher as obviously the military are a high risk pool.

OK, I give. Which side of this issue do you support - both?

 

[dtbach]

OK, I give. Which side of this issue do you support - both?

+1 I'm a 22 year Navy vet. When I signed on long, long ago, part of the deal was a good pension and health benefits at the end of service. Also part of the deal was long deployments away from home doing dangerous things (landing on a carrier in rough seas at night can be rather stressful). Although I was never in combat (which I am very thankful for) I did (as other military vets) my duty. Now the government needs to fulfill their commitment. If they want to change the deal, then it should be on the new folks coming in, not on the older veterans.

 

[nun]

OK, I give. Which side of this issue do you support - both?

I'm being a bit rhetorical and a little sarcastic. But I am on both sides. I think healthcare should be readily available to everyone and I would like to see everyone paying $500 a year in premiums and the recent attacks on state and federal workers benefits have been a bit hysterical. But I also realize that that would bankrupt the system the way it's currently organized. Obviously $500 a year in premiums is a very good deal when other federal and state workers pay 10 times that much. So I believe that this is an obvious case where there could be far more parity in what federal workers pay. Also when I see the outrage at teachers benefits I wonder why people aren't up in arms at the low level of TRICARE premiums.

 

[nun]

+1 I'm a 22 year Navy vet. When I signed on long, long ago, part of the deal was a good pension and health benefits at the end of service. Also part of the deal was long deployments away from home doing dangerous things (landing on a carrier in rough seas at night can be rather stressful). Although I was never in combat (which I am very thankful for) I did (as other military vets) my duty. Now the government needs to fulfill their commitment. If they want to change the deal, then it should be on the new folks coming in, not on the older veterans.

I agree that contracts should be honored, however, increasingly benefits are being "adjusted" for employees and retirees. Given current deficit and the high cost of military benefits increasing TRICARE premiums is an obvious thing to do. I don't see a good argument why the military should be treated any differently from other state and federal workers.....I do see a good argument why ALL contracts should be honored though.

 

[dtbach]

Costs need to be contained, lots of people have their benefits changed on them by employers, why should the military be different? Medicare is going to be change for me and I have 25 years of payments, why should TRICARE be immune form such changes?

Visit a military cemetery sometime and you might see that its "not just another j*b". By your reasoning, maybe they should cut my pension too. If the government want to attract a "volunteer" military force they need to honor their commitments.

 

[Webzter]

+1 I'm a 22 year Navy vet. When I signed on long, long ago, part of the deal was a good pension and health benefits at the end of service.

Was part of the contract also no inflation-indexed adjustments on health benefits? I'm pretty clueless in that department. If so, then you're right and they should only change the agreement with new recruits.

 

[dtbach]

Was part of the contract also no inflation-indexed adjustments on health benefits? I'm pretty clueless in that department. If so, then you're right and they should only change the agreement with new recruits.

I really don't know on that. I agree that health care costs to vets should be allowed to go up with inflation. Since the pensions they give us are COLA adjusted, the additional $ from that could be used to pay the higher premiums.

 

[nun]

I really don't know on that. I agree that health care costs to vets should be allowed to go up with inflation. Since the pensions they give us are COLA adjusted, the additional $ from that could be used to pay the higher premiums.

But healthcare premiums are going up at least 3x inflation in most medical organizations, using inflation rate would seem to be a bit generous.

 

[dtbach]

But healthcare premiums are going up at least 3x inflation in most medical organizations, using inflation rate would seem to be a bit generous.

Whatever happens, its above my paygrade. . . .

 

[Rustic23]

Yes the healthcare benefit was inflation adjusted.
The promise was:

FREE HEALTHCARE FOR LIFE.

Inflate it anyway you want, it should still be FREE!

Now, I will admit that some service members did not get that promise. It depends on how long ago you served. The government realized some years ago that they could not keep that promise, changed to TRICARE and started charging the service member for his retirement healthcare and his families healthcare while he was on active duty. It did not matter if he was already retired or not. Or if he had served the majority of his time under the 'promise'.

Along with TRICARE, the government then forced the retiree off TRICARE and onto MEDICARE when they turn 65. So their healthcare then went from $550 a year to almost $3,000 a year for two. A 445% increase. This is not a complaint, just a broken promise. By the way, there have been proposal to charge the retiree a TRICARE for Life premium also. So the beat goes on!

Politician love the military! They love to stand by them at parades in their home town. They love to tell people how much they support them. In reality the military are easy pickins behind close doors. Virtually no politician has enough military in their district tp change their vote. It does happen sometimes, but it is rare.

In truth, why should this surprise anyone? Look at the promises to the American Indian from the Government, and how well those have been kept over the years.

 

[dtbach]

Yes the healthcare benefit was inflation adjusted.
The promise was:

FREE HEALTHCARE FOR LIFE.

Inflate it anyway you want, it should still be FREE!

Now, I will admit that some service members did not get that promise. It depends on how long ago you served. The government realized some years ago that they could not keep that promise, changed to TRICARE and started charging the service member for his retirement healthcare and his families healthcare while he was on active duty. It did not matter if he was already retired or not. Or if he had served the majority of his time under the 'promise'.

Along with TRICARE, the government then forced the retiree off TRICARE and onto MEDICARE when they turn 65. So their healthcare then went from $550 a year to almost $3,000 a year for two. A 445% increase. This is not a complaint, just a broken promise. By the way, there have been proposal to charge the retiree a TRICARE for Life premium also. So the beat goes on!

Politician love the military! They love to stand by them at parades in their home town. They love to tell people how much they support them. In reality the military are easy pickins behind close doors. Virtually no politician has enough military in their district tp change their vote. It does happen sometimes, but it is rare.

In truth, why should this surprise anyone? Look at the promises to the American Indian from the Government, and how well those have been kept over the years.

Sir, you could not have said it better.

 

[nun]

Yes the healthcare benefit was inflation adjusted.
The promise was:

FREE HEALTHCARE FOR LIFE.

Inflate it anyway you want, it should still be FREE!

Now, I will admit that some service members did not get that promise. It depends on how long ago you served. The government realized some years ago that they could not keep that promise, changed to TRICARE and started charging the service member for his retirement healthcare and his families healthcare while he was on active duty. It did not matter if he was already retired or not. Or if he had served the majority of his time under the 'promise'.

Along with TRICARE, the government then forced the retiree off TRICARE and onto MEDICARE when they turn 65. So their healthcare then went from $550 a year to almost $3,000 a year for two. A 445% increase. This is not a complaint, just a broken promise. By the way, there have been proposal to charge the retiree a TRICARE for Life premium also. So the beat goes on!

Politician love the military! They love to stand by them at parades in their home town. They love to tell people how much they support them. In reality the military are easy pickins behind close doors. Virtually no politician has enough military in their district tp change their vote. It does happen sometimes, but it is rare.

In truth, why should this surprise anyone? Look at the promises to the American Indian from the Government, and how well those have been kept over the years.

I agree with your sentiments and hope you also support auto workers and teachers in defending their contractually agreed upon benefits.

The issue is that healthcare has to be paid for either by the consumer or greater efficiencies.....that may mean fewer MRIs etc, or by reducing the profits of interested parties like doctors and insurance companies.

 

[donheff]

Yeah, I heard him on NPR yesterday. When he mentioned Tricare I initially thought lets not screw the military on pay. But then when he mentioned what they were proposing (annual costs from $400 to $550 or some such I almost laughed out loud.

Yes the healthcare benefit was inflation adjusted.
The promise was:

FREE HEALTHCARE FOR LIFE.

Inflate it anyway you want, it should still be FREE!

Now, to demonstrate that I too am on both sides of the issue, despite laughing at the amount which seems so trivial, I have to agree that what is promised is promised. So, to the extent that members see the potential for backsliding here it is well worth objecting. But, as others have stated, teachers and other government workers also worked under explicit promises that many seem ready to renege on. We owe the military a large debt of gratitude - but what about, police, firefighters, and yes, teachers? All together now - honor our promises.

 

[Rustic23]

I absolutely support Auto workers in defending contractually agreed upon benefits. I also support the employers right to change those benefits for new hires, and to change it for existing employees, if and when, those agreements expire or require renewal. I am not a fan of a company going bankrupt to get rid of those promises, and then being allowed to reorganize. Go bankrupt, sell off the assets and pay your debts, of which one is the future liability of those agreements. If in this process the workers want to make a deal with the company, then that's ok. I don't remember being given that option when the Government broke their promise.

This should not surprise anyone. The government has a long history of using the military and then disregarding their promises. Let's see, does Bonus Army encampment in Washington come to mind after WWI?

 

[dtbach]

I absolutely support Auto workers in defending contractually agreed upon benefits. I also support the employers right to change those benefits for new hires, and to change it for existing employees, if and when, those agreements expire or require renewal. I am not a fan of a company going bankrupt to get rid of those promises, and then being allowed to reorganize. Go bankrupt, sell off the assets and pay your debts, of which one is the future liability of those agreements. If in this process the workers want to make a deal with the company, then that's ok. I don't remember being given that option when the Government broke their promise.

This should not surprise anyone. The government has a long history of using the military and then disregarding their promises. Let's see, does Bonus Army encampment in Washington come to mind after WWI?

Rustic23, Touché!! Very few people know about the Bonus Army during the Depression. The Gov absolutely reneged on the promise to these veterans. Lets hope history does not repeat itself.

 

[nun]

Now, to demonstrate that I too am on both sides of the issue, despite laughing at the amount which seems so trivial, I have to agree that what is promised is promised. So, to the extent that members see the potential for backsliding here it is well worth objecting. But, as others have stated, teachers and other government workers also worked under explicit promises that many seem ready to renege on. We owe the military a large debt of gratitude - but what about, police, firefighters, and yes, teachers? All together now - honor our promises.

I agree with you! But what if we simply can't afford to fund these benefits at the level they were promised. Of course what we decide to fund and how we raise funds to pay for it are always choices.....would politicians and the US public support tax increases to fund the promises we made to the military?