Sen. Tom coburn (R-Okla) says you got it too easy with tricare retirees

Partners:

• Vets for Victory
• Military Appreciation Day
• Army Paratrooper
• Patriot Guard Riders

 

[spacecowboy]

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/tom-coburn-targets-military-tr

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) wants to cut taxpayer funding for non-military elements of the Defense Department, starting with making retired, uninjured service members pay more for what he described as “extremely low-cost health care for life” for themselves, their spouses and dependents under the Tricare Prime system.

 

For military retirees eligible for Medicare, he also wants to raise the co-payments that they are charged to be in Tricare for life, the second payer for health care after Medicare. In addition, he wants to increase low fees that Tricare beneficiaries pay for pharmaceuticals purchased

[Salba]

Spacecowboy:

The cost of TRICARE prime is extremely low-cost compared to what my peers are paying for their health insursance.  He's got a point.  Do I want to pay more?  Of course not! Some of the reason is that this benefit was replacing health care benefit that many of us thought we were getting for serving 20+ years - defered compensation - not current benefit.  But that's not to say they're couldn't or shouldn't be some upward adjustment in annual enrollment fees or costs for co-pay/meds etc.

I would suggest the good Senator (and he is one of the better ones btw)... consider a tiered approach based on rank/years of service.  I as a LCDR with 28 years both served longer, but have a higher retirement pay than say an E-6 at 20 years - so maybe I should pay a little more than the E-6 but not as much as an O-6, or as much as an O-4 who retired at 20 because I served longer than my O-4 peer.

Shared sacrifice is not a bad concept - the fear of course is the more any of us contribute in tax, fees, penatlies, whatever - the more the politicians will spend and give away to their union buddies, folks who live off the dole and are bought off for votes by more benefits, and other various leaches off the taxpayers tit!  My 2cents worth then is CONTROL spending FIRST - get it below 20% of GDP and then, and only then, maybe talk about a few revenue methods to lower it even further to 18-19% GDP.  But until then - keep your friggin hands out of my pocket!!!!

Best Wishes

[bill12353]

Here is his proposal if you want to call it that.

By the way he made a statement that I wish to clarify is a lie or just his ignorance.
He said...     "Nobody in the country, as a single person working 20 years for the government, should
be able to get health care for $250 a year. Nobody was ever promised that, and
nobody should be able to do that."

Actually I was promised as well as millions of others if we would served 20 years or more that we would receive free medical care for ourselves and family for life.

Well they certainly change that after-the-fact.  Anyway here is the whole statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Coburn's Cuts: Military's Tricare Prime Health Care Program Targeted
By Walter Pincus, Published: July 24
Editor's note: Sen. Tom Coburn last Monday released a study that he said would
achieve $9 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade. We are looking at
parts of the proposal.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) wants to cut taxpayer funding for non-military
elements of the Defense Department, starting with making retired, uninjured
service members pay more for what he described as "extremely low-cost health
care for life" for themselves, their spouses and dependents under the Tricare
Prime system.
For military retirees eligible for Medicare, he also wants to raise the
co-payments that they are charged to be in Tricare for life, the second payer
for health care after Medicare. In addition, he wants to increase low fees that
Tricare beneficiaries pay for pharmaceuticals purchased at their local
drugstores.
Former defense secretary Robert M. Gates proposed raising Tricare Prime
enrollment fees for single retirees from $230 a year to $260 a year and fees for
retiree families from $460 a year to $520 a year. Coburn wants the fees to be
much higher and more in line with private-sector health plans.
Part of his concern is fairness, first for uninjured veterans who, for example,
served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan but "leave the military without serving 20
years [and] are not entitled to any of these health-care benefits." They
represent some 70 percent of those serving, according to Pentagon officials.
Another comparison he makes is to other federal government workers whose plans
are not as cheap. A medical doctor, Coburn told reporters last Monday: "Nobody
in the country, as a single person working 20 years for the government, should
be able to get health care for $250 a year. Nobody was ever promised that, and
nobody should be able to do that."
Instead, he wants to increase the enrollment fee for single retirees to
"approximately $2,000 per year and $3,500 for a family." At the same time he
would limit out-of-pocket expenses at $7,500 for those retirees with families.
He thinks these changes could save $11.5 billion a year.
His Tricare for life would require retirees to pay up to $550 for half the
initial cost not covered by Medicare and then up to $3,025, after which all
costs would be paid by Tricare. This change could save $4.3 billion a year.
Coburn wants to reduce the $8 billion annual government share of the cost of
drugs that Tricare beneficiaries purchase from their local private retail
pharmacies rather than buying them at lower cost by mail order or at military
base facilities. Where the price is now $3 for a 30-day supply of a generic drug
and $9 for a brand-name from private pharmacies, Coburn would raise that to$15
for generic and $25 for brand names and save some $2.6 billion a year.
Coburn told reporters he has no doubt about the reaction to his Tricare ideas.
"There's no question," he said, retired military, they won't like what I've
done. But the fact is is nobody's going to like what we've done, because
everybody gets a pinch - everybody. "
Beyond health care, Coburn has several other proposals that will rattle the
Pentagon. He wants to eliminate most of the $1.3 billion-a-year subsidy that
supports the Defense Commissary system of 252 grocery stores on military bases
worldwide. Prices at commissaries are much lower than at civilian supermarkets;
they are listed at cost plus a 5 percent surcharge. That money goes to offset
costs of new commissaries or to repair and maintain old ones. It does not pay
for salaries and benefits of the roughly 18,000 people who work at the
commissaries.
Coburn supports a Congressional Budget Office proposal that would reduce the
taxpayer subsidy over five years and see a gradual raise in prices so
commissaries could become self-sufficient. The increase in cost, according to
the CBO, would amount to $400 per service family per year and save the
government about $900 million annually.
He also wants to close down the Congressionally Directed Medical Research
Program, which for more than 20 years has added around $200 million a year
primarily for breast, lung and prostate cancer projects that have to be managed
primarily by contractors. Coburn's option is to "transfer funding for cancer
research that affects the general population back to [the National Institutes of
Health] and reduce the administrative costs of administering this research for
savings."
-------
SOURCE: Stars and Stripes (<http://www.stripes.com/>)

[bill12353]

By the way the good Sen. never served in the military.

[spacecowboy]

What surprised me was this man is a republican .  Thank you both for your replies.

love this video for some reason.

[Salba]

Umhhhhh - after reading the entire story

a) Sen Coburn is a OB-GYM Doctor I believe - not a lawyer like most of the others, is a fiscal conservative, and believes in smaller government. In my mind that makes him one of the good guys - albeit I don't agree with everything he proposes or wants.  He's on track more than off track about the good of our nation;
b) I agree with him (previous post) that our current fees for health care related items are much better than those our peers are paying for their health care coverage, and I could share the sacrifice by having the annual enrollment fee go up a bit, the co-pay, the cost of prescriptions up a bit; IF and ONLY IF, the government GETS SERIOUS about reducing spending at the same time;
c) However, Sen. Coburn is right the military retirees won't like this; especially those of us to felt we were promised - directly or implied - health care for life if we honorablely served until retirement. I suspect the passion in the argument will be less for those who don't believe that was the case; and certainly greater for those who do.
d) OUR status versus those who DID NOT retire is moot point.  The 75 percent of veterans who served less than 20 year argument NOT GETTING any health benefits is a RED HERRING and he should not USE THAT argument in support of his views.  They didn't serve until retirement, they weren't promised anything re: health care UNLESS wounded in combat and falling under VA rules - not DOD rules.
e) THE AMOUNT of pain he is proposing I DO NOT agree with.  Raising our costs to equivalent of civilian cost of health care - or even the Fed. civilian employee costs is a bogus comparison and should NOT see the light of day.  They didn't "risk" life and limb for 20 plus years... they didn't give up numerous rights, or move every 2-3 years reducing equity in homes, increasing costs, etc etc.  Every military member who served 20 or more years, risk much more than they did and earned the offsets they get for TRICARE and related medical plans.  That includes lower base pay, the inability to unionize, the inability to file many types of employment complaints, et al.
f) As to the cancer research - if it's being done elsewhere with grants etc - it's a good ideal. DOD has often been used to fund pet projects of politicians when they couldn't get the $ stuffed in elsewhere in the budget.  IF this research isn't directly related to military problems - move it and eliminate the overhead of administering it.
g) As to commissaries - he's wrong.  With COSTCO etal - while there are savings - it's not as great as he thinks it is.  I go every 4-6 weeks and buy in bulk - so yes I save some money.  But if I was going every week - the gas costs would eliminate those savings (1 hour plus drive one way).  And 1.3 billion is peanuts compared to the pork/waste in the federal budget.  NOT A GOOD TARGET in my mind... especially NOT until OBAMACARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE etc are addressed and solved.

My 2cents worth.
Sonny

[fishnfanatic]

Whaddya expect from a politician that will get his retirement after only 1 term?  He won't suffer any loses....you can bet on that.

[GreenET1]

One of the main reasions that I joined the Reserve when I finished my active duty was to EARN my retirement health care benifit.