TRICARE premium increases

[Webzter]

would politicians and the US public support tax increases to fund the promises we made to the military?

We hired the politicians to represent our collective interests. One of our collective interests was a strong military that we could use to project our ideals and protect our freedoms. Out of that came up with an incentive package to attract the needed talent at the needed levels to fulfill that goal. This included bringing in people that might have otherwise chosen alternate career paths.

If that's no longer one of our collective interests then we need to get that message to our politicians so they can react accordingly going forward. However, that shouldn't cause us to suddenly decide it's ok to change the rules midway through the game.

Of course, all this assumes that one buys into the idea that we're actually being represented by congress and that they listen to their constituents

The bigger issue may be that we should have been raising taxes and/or cutting spending all along but kept putting it off(and/or not spending in the first place... eg, two wars and a NATO action going on right now, others in the past). We may be at a point now where there's no way to push it off to another generation and no way to make adjustments painlessly.

 

[Rustic23]

Little article in the paper today. Over 3,000 federal employees in the State of Texas make more than the Governor of Texas. The governor makes $150,000 a year. We have the money, it is just where the politicians decide to spend it.

Side note, maybe the governor should apply for a life guard job in CA.

 

[REWahoo]

Side note, maybe the governor should apply for a life guard job in CA.

I think he's considering another position with a furnished house...

 

[dtbach]

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 think it is rather reprehensible that ANY promise made by either a company or the government, is later reneged on which affects retirees. However, a huge difference between autoworkers, teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc and military veterans is that none of the former had to leave family and friends for months and years at a time with the possiblity of combat. Police and Firefighters at times put themselves in harms way, but teachers and autoworkers don't. And another main difference is that the "Federal" government made the promise, not a company, State, City or County.

If the "Federal" Government CANNOT or WILL NOT honor the promises made, we are in big trouble.

 

[check6]

+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.

Good thing you stayed in as commercial pilots have had a 40% decrease in pay plus frozen pension in the past 7 years vs military pay increase of 8.6%.

 

[dtbach]

Good thing you stayed in as commercial pilots have had a 40% decrease in pay plus frozen pension in the past 7 years vs military pay increase of 8.6%.

I hear you check6. I was starting to hear some ominous things about commercial air already in '87 from pards who had departed for "greener pastures"

 

[Rustic23]

Wahoo,
Even that one pays only slightly more than those life guards, but it does come with some nice perks.

 

[ERD50]

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

But, as others have stated, teachers and other government workers also worked under explicit promises that many seem ready to renege on.

You are going to have to fill me in here. What teachers are having to defend 'contractually agreed upon benefits'?

Here in IL, they changed the rules for new hires. They are looking to (or have?) changed the formulas used for future benefits earned (and/or contributions to those benefits) for existing workers. Nothing changes for what was put in or earned for the past.

So I'm unaware of any changes to contractually agreed upon benefits. I'm sure that would go to court. But if a company agrees to hire you at a $xx,000 annual salary, they are free to (as are you) to renegotiate that salary for next year. Neither is reneging on contractually agreed upon benefits. And either party is free to decline and move on.

-ERD50

 

[Mulligan]

I think it is rather reprehensible that ANY promise made by either a company or the government, is later reneged on which affects retirees. However, a huge difference between autoworkers, teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc and military veterans is that none of the former had to leave family and friends for months and years at a time with the possiblity of combat. Police and Firefighters at times put themselves in harms way, but teachers and autoworkers don't. And another main difference is that the "Federal" government made the promise, not a company, State, City or County.

If the "Federal" Government CANNOT or WILL NOT honor the promises made, we are in big trouble.

Being a retired educator, I can certainly vouch for all educators in my state we get NO retired health benefits whatsoever. That being said, I certainly support the retired military benefits being continued. Though I know not all, but a lot of veterans have ongoing health issues and disabilities that were directly caused by their service. The government should stand behind these people, and keep their promise, IMHO

 

[Nords]

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.

You mean: for the most part underpaid, overworked, and generally underappreciated until it's an emergency?

Nobody is making anyone sign up for these jobs. The only proven retention technique that the military has developed over the last five decades is: money. More and more of it. These days it's usually an "allowance" or a "bonus" or a billet-related incentive, so none of it raises the veteran's retired pay.

In the late 1990s I talked with a guy who started his submarine service in 1974. When we compared the submarine service's bonus contracts over the years and adjusted for the CPI, they weren't even keeping up with inflation.

You veterans can harrumph all you want about service and promises and commitments. Unless you have the ability to pull off a Bud Day and get the Supreme Court involved again, you're not working toward a realistic solution. You're certainly not going to achieve grass-roots support from taxpayers like DonHeff and nun. However the latest Tricare proposal is the first one in 15 years to have a chance of becoming law, and it's barely enough to persuade the lower-end docs to keep accepting Tricare reimbursements. (Heaven forbid we should find an orthopedic surgeon in Hawaii who thinks it's a good deal.) In exchange, the DoD commitment to us veterans is that they won't jack up our premiums by more than whatever we're calling the rate of inflation that year.

It's not the sweet deal that some of you think you've been promised (I don't see it anywhere on my contract) but it's better than the status quo.

 

[nun]

I think it is rather reprehensible that ANY promise made by either a company or the government, is later reneged on which affects retirees. However, a huge difference between autoworkers, teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc and military veterans is that none of the former had to leave family and friends for months and years at a time with the possiblity of combat. Police and Firefighters at times put themselves in harms way, but teachers and autoworkers don't. And another main difference is that the "Federal" government made the promise, not a company, State, City or County.

If the "Federal" Government CANNOT or WILL NOT honor the promises made, we are in big trouble.

When people join the military they should know the risks. If you aren't comfortable with being posted abroad or combat do something else. It should not be an excuse for preferential treatment.

 

[Rustic23]

So, keeping premisses, contracts ans such is preferential treatment? I don't think you meant that. When I joined I knew the risk, and assumed the reward would be there also. Now while I never got spat on for that decisions, several of my fellow soldiers did, and when the government broke those premisses, we all did! I have a son in the military. The government has made promises to those who currently serve. These people have little choice but to except it.

By the way, another way the service is different is a service man can not quit! You can walk out today, I believe, but I am not sure, even police and firemen can walk off the job anytime they wish. In the case of a pilot he must stay 7 to 10 years after pilot training. Every time he goes to another training he picks up a 'commitment'. So imagine yourself committed for 10 or 11 years to a system that your boss can change your benefits at anytime and you can't quit! Enlisted personal sign a contract for a set period of time, and I don't believe it even talks about benefits.

Nords statement aside, no military member ever see or signs a contract talking about his benefits! There are policies and laws governing military benefits and we all know Congress can change them at will. Changing them for active duty is not right anymore than changing Medicare or SS is for those that or either near or are collecting these benefits. The same applies, IMHO, to doctors, lawyers, auto workers, police, firemen, or Indian chiefs! Only congress is exempt and it is because they vote on their own benefits.

 

[Purron]

TRICARE is getting a lot of attention up on the Hill. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released two reports to congressional committees about TRICARE.

Access to Civilian Providers under TRICARE Standard and Extra

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11500.pdf

DOD Lacks Assurance That Selected Reserve Members are Informed About TRICARE Reserve Select

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11551.pdf

Plus, here's an interesting GAO document addressing questions raised by Senator Lindsey Graham:

DOD Health Care: Prohibition on Financial Incentives That May Influence Health Insurance Choices for Retirees and Their Dependents under Age 65

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11160r.pdf

 

[Nords]

TRICARE is getting a lot of attention up on the Hill. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released two reports to congressional committees about TRICARE.

I think Tricare will be the proxy battleground for fixing Medicare/Medicaid...

 

[Gatordoc50]

+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 with this argument. It was the deal coming in. The government and insurance companies would have us believe that insurance is a form of currency, which it is not.

 

[Rustic23]

Here is another little known difference between a military and civilian career. Let's say you are a pilot, and have 13 years in service. You fail to make O-4. You are out! No pension, no healthcare, just goodby. Then again it could happen at the 18 year point if you don't make O-5. That one is a little harder for the services, but I believe it is still it on the books.

 

[braumeister]

You are out! No pension, no healthcare, just goodby. Then again it could happen at the 18 year point if you don't make O-5. That one is a little harder for the services, but I believe it is still it on the books.

That actually happened to a friend of mine. He was in great condition (could run rings around me) but his commander said he was over the weight limit. The doc recommended a waiver but the CO overruled him. Out the door after 18 years. Simply because the CO didn't like him.

 

[martyb]

Here is another little known difference between a military and civilian career. Let's say you are a pilot, and have 13 years in service. You fail to make O-4. You are out! No pension, no healthcare, just goodby. Then again it could happen at the 18 year point if you don't make O-5. That one is a little harder for the services, but I believe it is still it on the books.

I think that is what happened to my ex-wife's current husband. He was a fighter pilot in the Air Force. He was in about 13 years, an Air Force Academy graduate, instructor pilot etc. However, he failed to advance beyond 0-3 (Captain for you Navy pukes!) He was squeezed out of the Air Force, and for a couple of years, while he tried to get on with the airlines, he worked in a glass factory. He did eventually get on with one of the major airlines and I believe he's doing ok now. My current wife & my ex get along well, and I like the ex's current hubby just fine. We've fished together a time or two. Seems strange, I know but life's too short, and now that the kids are grown (I had custody of our 2 girls) there's nothing to fight about.

 

[Nords]

Here is another little known difference between a military and civilian career. Let's say you are a pilot, and have 13 years in service. You fail to make O-4. You are out! No pension, no healthcare, just goodby. Then again it could happen at the 18 year point if you don't make O-5. That one is a little harder for the services, but I believe it is still it on the books.

That actually happened to a friend of mine. He was in great condition (could run rings around me) but his commander said he was over the weight limit. The doc recommended a waiver but the CO overruled him. Out the door after 18 years. Simply because the CO didn't like him.

I think that is what happened to my ex-wife's current husband. He was a fighter pilot in the Air Force. He was in about 13 years, an Air Force Academy graduate, instructor pilot etc. However, he failed to advance beyond 0-3 (Captain for you Navy pukes!) He was squeezed out of the Air Force, ...

FWIW the rules change with the retention situation (and to some extent with the personalities), but the intent of Title X is that anyone reaching 18 years is guaranteed the opportunity to stay to 20. In the Navy that even includes a "continuation board" for those who don't select to O-5-- just to see if they can get to 18. Spouse encountered a similar situation a decade ago and we spent quite a few hours interpreting the differences between the enabling legislation and the service instruction. Many times the service instruction doesn't fully incorporate the enabling legislation (or contradicts it).

When I failed selection to O-5 I was "continued on good behavior" until I was "retirement eligible". Just before that happened I was on a staff with a number of officers under that system. When the military offered TERA, a temporary 15-year retirement, those officers were informed that they were suddenly retirement eligible. I think they had 120-180 days' warning. Not only that but their "50% of base pay at 20" became something much less-- IIRC 35%. Lawsuits flew to no avail.

A couple years later when my turn came I enthusiastically applied for TERA three different times and was turned down each time. The submarine force had already cut too deep. When I got to 20 my XO seriously offered to have BUPERS go to Congress to extend me for a year or two "on good performance" because of personnel shortages. There are submarine officers in YG96 who are practically guaranteed selection to command, let alone O-5, because we cut too deep in the late 90s. Shades of the 1970s all over again.

When spouse was in the Navy Reserve she encountered dozens of officers who, for one reason or another, weren't promoted to O-4 and were ordered to resign from active duty. For some reason they were allowed to join the Reserves, where a year or two later they had miraculously "rehabilitated" their performance (usually a different set of personalities) and promoted to O-4.

 

[BLS53]

FWIW the rules change with the retention situation (and to some extent with the personalities), but the intent of Title X is that anyone reaching 18 years is guaranteed the opportunity to stay to 20. In the Navy that even includes a "continuation board" for those who don't select to O-5-- just to see if they can get to 18. Spouse encountered a similar situation a decade ago and we spent quite a few hours interpreting the differences between the enabling legislation and the service instruction. Many times the service instruction doesn't fully incorporate the enabling legislation (or contradicts it).

When I failed selection to O-5 I was "continued on good behavior" until I was "retirement eligible". Just before that happened I was on a staff with a number of officers under that system. When the military offered TERA, a temporary 15-year retirement, those officers were informed that they were suddenly retirement eligible. I think they had 120-180 days' warning. Not only that but their "50% of base pay at 20" became something much less-- IIRC 35%. Lawsuits flew to no avail.

A couple years later when my turn came I enthusiastically applied for TERA three different times and was turned down each time. The submarine force had already cut too deep. When I got to 20 my XO seriously offered to have BUPERS go to Congress to extend me for a year or two "on good performance" because of personnel shortages. There are submarine officers in YG96 who are practically guaranteed selection to command, let alone O-5, because we cut too deep in the late 90s. Shades of the 1970s all over again.

When spouse was in the Navy Reserve she encountered dozens of officers who, for one reason or another, weren't promoted to O-4 and were ordered to resign from active duty. For some reason they were allowed to join the Reserves, where a year or two later they had miraculously "rehabilitated" their performance (usually a different set of personalities) and promoted to O-4.

I think 15 years would have yielded 37.5% under TERA. It worked the same as going over 20, but in reverse. 2.5% per year, and broken down into months. There might have been some other penalty in addition to that, but it's been too long ago and I don't remember.

 

[nun]

I agree with this argument. It was the deal coming in. The government and insurance companies would have us believe that insurance is a form of currency, which it is not.

Sure as I've said commitments should not be broken....but it all comes down to politics in the end. Tricare is obviously a good deal and the US tax payer is subsidizing military healthcare to a massive extent. So far no one wants to make a political point out of that as has been done with other groups like auto-workers and teachers. It's easy to demonize those groups and attack their benefits. It's harder with the military as most people respect them. Also the usual deficit hawks have a vested interest in attacking unionized workers rather than the military because of the way the groups tend to vote. But there's a point where the differential between healthcare benefits for the military and the rest of the population will become unsustainable and I think that point is any Medicare reform.

 

[Nords]

I think 15 years would have yielded 37.5% under TERA. It worked the same as going over 20, but in reverse. 2.5% per year, and broken down into months. There might have been some other penalty in addition to that, but it's been too long ago and I don't remember.

That sounds right.

I saved a three-inch binder of "important Navy paperwork" from those days, but I'd have to look through it for a long time to figure out if I kept a TERA message.

During the Cold War there wasn't much sympathy in the submarine force for guys who couldn't get selected for XO or O-5. Even if they were genuinely clueless (or incompetent) the feeling was that they weren't hauling their share of the load in building 125 attack submarines and 50 boomers. Extended sea tours and shorter shore duty were leaving everyone grumpy.

Of course a few years of the early 1990s drawdown, including 35-40% selection rates for XO, changed that attitude. Since the decommissioned boomers had two crews, 35-40% was about how many submarine crews were left. Add the Internet economic boom to that environment and a thundering herd of steely-eyed killers of the deep was heading for the exits.

 

[Rustic23]

The US taxpayer is asking military members, and in some cases their family's, to go in harms way! For this they lay out a series or rewards, pay, time off, living conditions, retirement, and yes health care.

In the above statement you can replace US Taxpayer with 'Employer' and Military menbers, with Employees. You can then replace 'go in harms' way with well say 'put on tires'.

At any rate you come up with the same thing. A promise for work performed. If you want to change this for new hires, no problem. If you want to change this for those working, no problem, as long as you fairly compensate those for the time under the 'old system'. If you want to change for those that have retired, big problem, yet for the military, no problem!

 

[nun]

The US taxpayer is asking military members, and in some cases their family's, to go in harms way! For this they lay out a series or rewards, pay, time off, living conditions, retirement, and yes health care.

In the above statement you can replace US Taxpayer with 'Employer' and Military menbers, with Employees. You can then replace 'go in harms' way with well say 'put on tires'.

At any rate you come up with the same thing. A promise for work performed. If you want to change this for new hires, no problem. If you want to change this for those working, no problem, as long as you fairly compensate those for the time under the 'old system'. If you want to change for those that have retired, big problem, yet for the military, no problem!

I'm with you that you should get what you were promised, as should everyone. I hope that those that want to protect mitary benefits also want to protect Medicare and the benefits negotiated by others as well.

I don't feel that the type of work the military does gives them any greater claim to fairness or social justice than any other group. The reality of the deficit and the inability of politicians to raise revenue means that everyone will have to sacrifice. Medicare benefits will change an I would hope that military retirees will support the nation by paying higher Tricare premiums.

 

[Rustic23]

My guess is you will never understand. Can you quit? Can you refuse to do something you boss tells you to do without going to jail? If your boss pays for you to go to school, are you legally obligated to work for him for say another 4 years? If you are a secretary, can you boss tell you to get a gun and guard the front gate, and you have to do it or go to jail or may be shot? If you are hired as a chemist, can your boss make you a fireman, and for four years you have to fight fires?

Yes it is an all volunteer force. Men and women volunteer based on the fact that they believe that their fellow countrymen will keep their word. You don't see the difference, and I doubt you ever will.

A side note that maybe Lionidas could fill in, yesterday, the Houston paper said that a policeman killed in the line of duty could collect $300,000 from the federal government, yet, SGLI for a service member is $250,000. Congress at work again!