Everyone cares about health care costs, right? That is especially true of our Congress, after all we just have been blessed with the Patient Protection Affordable Healthcare Act.
Health care costs come in many forms, your premiums, your out of pocket costs and yes your taxes. The very people in Congress who lambaste insurance companies are the same people who have refused to adjust premiums (paid by participants) for TRICARE since the program was enacted over a decade ago. This program provides health insurance coverage for veterans, many of whom have non military careers with employer based coverage but choose TRICARE because it is virtually free, an entitlement of entitlements. Remember, we are not talking about treating military related wounds or illness, we are talking about health care like all of us receive and pay for or try to pay for.
This is the same care that a family earning $88,000 a year will pay up to 9.5% of their income for under health care reform. I know one person with TRICARE whose non-military pension alone is twice that amount.
Consider this excerpt from the speech given by Secretary of Defense Gates on May 8, 2010. Even when people try to do the right thing to manage costs, politics gets in the way.
“Consider another example. Leaving aside the sacred obligation we have to America’s wounded warriors, health-care costs are eating the Defense Department alive, rising from $19 billion a decade ago to $50 billion – roughly the entire foreign affairs and assistance budget of the State Department. The premiums (paid by participants) for TRICARE, the military health insurance program, have not risen since the program was founded more than a decade ago. Many working age military retirees – who are earning full-time salaries on top of their full military pensions – are opting for TRICARE even though they could get health coverage through their employer, with the taxpayer picking up most of the tab as the result. In recent years the Department has attempted modest increases in premiums and co-pays to help bring costs under control, but has been met with a furious response from the Congress and veterans groups. The proposals routinely die an ignominious death on Capitol Hill. “
He goes on to mention that Congress also routinely adds a half percent to the military pay increases requested by the Defense Department.
So, while we are all enjoying the benefits of health care reform (yet to be paid for) as the President recently pointed out, we are also paying for the out of control military health benefits.
Hey where have I heard this before, “it’s the costs stupid.”
[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=brooklyn+bridge&iid=4510360″ src=”4/a/2/a/Security_On_The_b2e6.jpg?adImageId=12800138&imageId=4510360″ width=”380″ height=”204″ /]
For Sale, bargain price
I hope all this gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that tells you we can trust all the promises contained in health care reform and that we can count on all the provisions being implemented down the road just as they were enacted in 2010.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
First, those pensions aren’t necessarily all that generous. Second, while the health benefits may be relatively inexpensive they are NOT free. Third, the pensioner, along with all the other citizens and taxpayers, pays personl, property, and other taxes.
Reneging on the obligations isn’t a choice.
LikeLike
See my most recent reply to Anthony Merridy.
Yes, the pensioner does pay taxes, and those are the folks who should be most concerned as their incomes are typically fixed and they have little flexibility to adjust to ever rising taxes.
I hear you that reneging is not a choice, I don’t think so either, but big changes need to be made for all future recipients and quickly.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that, Richard. We created this problem, and we can fix it. First, be DAMN sure that you are sending the troops in for the right reasons, or don’t send them at all; second, factor in the costs, long and short-term, of the casualties that result from ANY combat deployment. The number would probably be sufficiently hair-raising that deployment might be ruled out as a viable option.
Of course, given the state of politics today, I’m probably living in a dream world if I think the powers-that-be would ever actually DO these things. They only seem to be concerned about immediate casualties; they look bad on CNN. Long-term issues never seem to enter the conversation – except for those doing the fighting and dieing.
LikeLike
Before I retired last year I spent forty eight years managing employee benefits for a Fortune 500 company, during that time I also served on served on state commissions for three governors to evaluate the pensions and other benefits of state workers, I currently serve on a state health benefit commission overseeing health benefits for state workers. The problem with state worker benefits is very real and very large. In addition to pensions, the states have unfunded liabilities for retiree health benefits of about one trillion dollars.
You may also want to read this:
http://quinnscommentary.com/2010/05/22/bailout-of-state-pension-funds-on-the-horizon-rewarding-more-irresponsible-behavior/
LikeLike
Having vented my spleen in that last blast, I agree that there are those who one might consider to be taking advantage of the system. And I also agree that some cost adjustment is probably necessary in the long run, or we will be bled dry. I believe that ‘double-dipping’ is wrong, regardless of who does it. It just seems that everyone wants to immediately find a way to cut military benefits, especially health care (which is usually the most needed) and I think that’s wrong too.
LikeLike
We all complain about taxes and deficits, but the sad truth is that the bulk of the federal budget is entitlements and the military and nobody wants to cut those items. We seem to be on a catch-22.
LikeLike
The politicians and so-called ‘leadership’ of this country need to consider ALL the costs of their mis-adventures overseas. The cost of taking care of veterans should be seen as part of the bill. Done that way, I wonder how many leaders would seriously consider sending us all over the planet, when they have to face the REAL cost of the manpower? Whether you retire from military service, or only finish that first enlistment (as I did), you spend a LONG time getting over the experience of living and working in an actual combat zone, even if you don’t do any of the actual fighting. The physical injuries frequently are nothing compared to the psychological scars many of us carry, and I think the same holds true for police and fire personnel. If you want to trim the cost of the military, the best way is to make sure they end up fighting only when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! We need medical benefits now more than ever, given how many of us have been fighting, and for how long. My ‘brothers and sisters’ have been in harm’s way for the past 8 years (longer than WW2!); we shouldn’t even be TALKING about cutting back on their care. THAT CONVERSATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD BEFORE THEY WERE SENT IN!
LikeLike
Again I STRONGLY! Unless you are talking about Police or Fire departments, most civil servants spend their time punching clocks while sitting on their asses, and risking exactly nothing! I thoroughly resent the implication that military service in some hell hole like ‘Nam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan is comparable to someone moving paper around for 20 years!
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised; civilians NEVER get it!
LikeLike
Police and Firefighters are public sector employees, just as we in the Military were. And like you I think they earned whatever they got. In poor rural areas like where I live, the Eastern Shore of Virginia, most of the Fire Departments and Fire and Rescue personnel are volunteers. I think that, unless they collectively bargained for health insurance, they are relying on some other source.
The basic fallacy that the columnist is operating under is that everyone has multiple options from which to choose. That isn’t the case. So should everyone take whatever ailment or injury they get to their local Emergency Room? That would cost the taxpayers a LOT more. At least under a program like TRICARE there is a Primary Care Physician who filters out what does or does not require treatment and what treatment that is.
You’re right, people(civilians) who have never BTDT will never understand. I’m glad that Congress does (at least when they feel the pressure from AL, VFW, DAV, etc).
Both the Bush, and now the Obama administrations with DoD under the care of Mr Gates have asked for increases in premiums, copays, drug copays. They didn’t get the premium increase, but the drug copays and changes in the drug formularies have raised those fees, so it is a little disingenuous to say that “The premiums (paid by participants) for TRICARE, the military health insurance program, have not risen since the program was founded more than a decade ago.” Premiums, true. Pharmacy costs, NOT true. As I said before, a reasonable increase might be in order, but the problem is defining what reasonable is. Once you let DoD get their hands on that one, TRICARE could well disappear because it becomes too expensive for any but high ranking Officer Retirees to afford.
LikeLike
No one, certainly not me, advocates doing away with the program or dramatically cutting it or not honoring obligations to career military personel, but that does not mean the program does not need to be adjusted and cost sharing updated just as is done for millions of other retirees. To not have premiums increased while costs skyrocket is not affordable to society.
TRICARE should not carry the full cost of healthcare for those with military pensions but who have other non military coverage from a second
career.
LikeLike
The person with TRICARE who the Columnist knows who has a pension of the magnitude must be a retired General. As a retired Navy E-7 my retirement check is less than 35,000 per year. I have been unemployed for two years thanks to the wonderful economy we have. Last year my wife, the only person in the home with a job, was in the hospital twice for pneumonia, once for one week, and once six months later for two weeks, one in ICU, one on a regular ward. Total bill for this was nearly $100K, which would have bankrupted us. You see, she doesn’t get enough hours on her jobs, yes there are three at slightly more than minimum wage, 2 at 8 hours per week and 1 that varies, and just ended. So I would tell you that you are just plain wrong. My wife is a Viet Nam era veteran, and I served 26+ years in the Navy, including both Gulf wars, retiring in June 2004. I paid my dues for these benefits. Small adjustments in TRICARE might be in order at some point, but the adjustments the DoD asked for darn near offset increases in Retired Pay. DoD doesn’t care about Veterans or Retirees, we are seen as finished business. We aren’t, and they need to accept that and act like we matter. Oh, one last thing, I still carry an ID card with an expiration date of INDEF. I’m subject to recall.
Don’t try to balance the budget on the backs of Veterans, Retirees, or their families.
LikeLike
The pension was not military but from a second career unrelated to military service.
Your logic is the same as used by many state workers and public employee unions, “I earned the benefits.” Many private sector workers earned their retirement benefits too but are seeing them reduced or eliminated.
The fact is that TRICARE is not affordable as is just like public employee benefits are not afforable to taxpayers.
LikeLike
Well, that secondary pension is atypical, and it is not logical to present that as the general case. Concerning public sector retirees, those obligations were freely taken on by whichever level of government applies, usually because the salaries were meager compared to the risks. Those Public sector employees are performing duties and rendering services, be they National Defense, Public Safety, etc, which are necessary to a modern, safe, and secure society. That society, as represented by its elected officials, freely took upon itself these obligations for future benefits because it could not, and chose not to, adequately compensate these people who put their very lives on the line. The fact that government failed to be fiscally responsible and pay into a fund which would cover these future obligations is the problem of the government, not of the people to whom the promises were made.
As to private sector employees, I think the companies should be held to their agreements, but in that case it is a question for litigation. It is highly likely that if they cut executive compensation they COULD pay for it.
It is currently in vogue to espouse libertarian ideas, but that doesn’t make them right. Obligations made must be kept.
LikeLike
There is no such thing as the problem of the government without the same problem being the problem of the citizens and the taxpayers. Look at Greece.
I agree that commitments made should be kept both public and private, but who pays for those? The state worker with a generous pension and free health benefits is doing ok, but the person who has neither and pays for all those benefits with personal, property and other taxes is not doing so well. We are all in this together.
The unions and the politicians are generous with other peoples money, that is the easy part. The current and future obligations must be paid for. We either fix the system or nobody complains about higher and higher taxes. What other choice is there?
LikeLike
Here I disagree. Yes, I have a vested interest; I am a Vietnam Veteran. Having said that, Veteran’s benefits are constantly being cut by Congress; they are much lower than they were when I was in the Service. I am told time and again how it is important that one’s word be kept, yet in this case, Veterans are always told one thing when the country needs them, and another when they are no longer necessary. We were promised health care (among other things) for our service, yet until recently, the VA budget was cut year after year. In short, many of us feel lied to by our government an our elected officials. Its not enough that we get sent to clean up some politician’s mess, but when we come home, we’re told that the benefits we were promised for our service is too expensive?!?!
LikeLike