[Vision2020] Pentagon Proposes Steep Hikes in Tricare Costs f or Retirees

Thu Jan 26 18:32:27 PST 2006

Tom,

I would suggest you contact Senator Larry Craig's office and volunteer your
time to assist the senator with his battle to maintain service member and
veteran services.  Senator Craig is a well known advocate for veterans and I
am sure he will appreciate any support you and the millions of veterans can
bring to the table to prevent this erosion of benefits.  His Lewiston office
is (208) 743-0792, I do not know who the current staffer is in that office.
Senator Craig's web site is:  http://craig.senate.gov/
<http://craig.senate.gov/> 

Follow the "Veterans" link to his latest newsletter.

Good Luck

Chris

Chris Storhok

  _____  

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Tom Hansen
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:20 PM
To: Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: [Vision2020] Pentagon Proposes Steep Hikes in Tricare Costs for
Retirees

>From the Army Times (www.armytimes.com <http://www.armytimes.com/> ) -

As President Bush requests Congress to permanently maintain tax breaks for
corporate America and the wealthy, the lost revenue must come from
somewhere.

So, why not take it from veteran health care?

F**K BUSH !

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------

Pentagon proposes steep hikes in Tricare costs for retirees

By Rick Maze

Times staff writer

A Pentagon proposal that could triple some Tricare insurance costs for
military retirees and their families is drawing sharp criticism from
military advocacy groups and members of Congress.

The plan, being considered as part of the 2007 budget request to be unveiled
Feb. 6, would increase Tricare fees for retirees under age 65 beginning Oct.
1.

Increases would be substantial - as much as $1,200 more a year by 2009 -
with no end in sight because the plan calls for annual rate hikes in 2010
and beyond that would match inflation.

Details on the proposal were provided by the Military Officers Association
of America, one of many military-related grups mobilizing to fight the
proposal.

Defense Department officials confirmed that Tricare fees were being
considered as part of the 2007 budget, but would not discuss any details
until the White House releases the federal budget plan.

Senior Pentagon leaders, both military and civilian, know their plan will
meet with stiff opposition and are trying to prepare a united front, defense
sources said. The Joint Chiefs are considering sending a rare joint letter
to Congress explaining why the fee increases are important because they do
not see how the military can afford needed weapons programs if soaring
health care costs remain unchecked, sources said.

A key element of the proposal is to discourage retirees from using the
military medical system if they have other options, such as insurance
through a post-service employer, because this would generate savings far
greater than any money raised through higher enrollment fees.

"This is wrong on so many levels," said Steve Strobridge, government
relations director for the Military Officers Association of America. 

"In the middle of a war, with troops and families vastly overstressed,
recruiting already in the toilet, and retention at risk, the Defense
Department wants to pay for weapons by cutting manpower and trying to cut
career military benefits by $1,000 a year or more? That's just flat
unconscionable. Not only is it grossly unfair to the people, but it poses
terrible risks for long-term retention and readiness."

Strobridge acknowledged that health care costs are rising, but said he can't
see why defense officials are willing to accept massive increases in the
cost of weapons but not in personnel.

"If DoD is willing to accept 400 percent to 500 percent cost growth in
weapons systems, then people are no less important," he said, noting that
the cost of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has increased 392 percent since
1985, while the cost of an F-22 Raptor has jumped by 526 percent.

"The Pentagon needs to acknowledge its own management responsibility for
rising weapons costs rather than trying to stick military retirees with the
bill."

A blow to expectations

Active-duty members would not be directly affected by the fee increases, but
representatives of major military associations said there is an impact on
morale.

"For anyone well along in their career who is thinking about retirement,
this is a blow to their expectations about what the government is going to
do for them," said Jim Lokovic of the Air Force Sergeants Association, who
has been traveling to military bases to discuss changes in pay and benefits.

"Many of the people I have been talking with have 10 or more years of
service, and remember when they were told by recruiters and career
counselors that if they just stayed around, the government was going to
provide them with free health care in retirement," Lokovic said.

"Well, we learned years ago it wasn't free, and now we are learning that it
isn't cheap either," he said. "I think those who are well along toward
retirement in their career are going to stay ... but those who are at the
decision point are going to see this as an erosion of retirement benefits. I
promise you some are going to get out because of it."

Strobridge agreed. "Don't try to tell us that a country that can afford
hundreds of billions of dollars in pork spending and tax cuts can't afford
to pay for both military weapons and retiree health care," he said.

More than 22,000 members of the officer's group have written Congress
opposing the initiative, he said.

House Democrats seized on the controversy with a Jan. 25 letter to President
Bush asking him to disavow the fee proposal.

"It is unconscionable that you would even consider a fee increase on the men
and women in uniform who bravely sacrificed for our country, especially
during a time of war," states the letter from House Democratic leaders. "We
must demonstrate our commitment to our troops and future veterans by
assuring them that just as they protected us, we will take care of them when
their service ends."

They said the fee increase not only is unfair to military retirees, but will
also hurt military readiness through its impact on recruiting and retention.

"Your administration must not shift additional costs upon veterans or
military retirees," they wrote, adding that to do so would be "a national
disgrace and ... a pointed rebuke to those who served and have earned those
benefits."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------

And once the returning troops become veterans, what then of that once proud
support, America?

Take care, Moscow.

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

"Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil
and steady dedication of a lifetime." 

--Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060126/84e857f7/attachment-0001.htm