Military Retirees & Healthcare

[Dannyalcatraz]

Seems like Lindsey Graham thinks military retirees aren't paying enough for their healthcare. Nice.

Sure, there are benefits to serving your country: tax free shopping, free healthcare on active duty, generous retirement, and sometimes active-duty housing benefits. But military families give up a lot, too: limited autonomy in key life decisions, military salaries that are not comparable to analogous ones in the private sector, preventing you from retiring when you want, the possibility of being called back to active service after you've retired, and so forth.

But when my Dad joined up, free healthcare for life was what he was promised for himself and my Mom. And every few years, that promise gets whittled away. They don't phase it in, either- everyone gets hit by the same rule. The deal you signed up for when you enlisted gets unilaterally and retroactively rewritten...AFTER you already upheld your side of it.

If it were a civilian contract, it would be illegal.

Now comes this:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ust-pay-more-for-health-care.html?ESRC=dod.nl

When times are tough, even certain GOP candidates think everyone must adjust their belts. It's just that with policies like this, the little guys get to tighten theirs, while the guys at the top have to let them out because they're getting too snug...

If only there were a way the government could raise its revenues to pay for all the things it committed to do for "We the people"...

 

[JamesonCourage]

While the military seems to do a lot of pretty shady things in my book when it comes to treating its people right (the long hours with no overtime, etc.), I'm hard-pressed to get up in arms over healthcare issues for them. They have a tremendously sweet deal compared to most people (what other job gives that kind of healthcare after just a few years?). I'd rather see everyone have healthcare (including active duty members, vets, and civilians), honestly.

I don't think they deserve the healthcare because they served in the military. I do think they deserve it because they're people, though, and as a nation we can afford it (despite what many people think). But that's my view on it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sweet deal? Depends on how you look at it.

Part of the point with my anger is that a lot of people join the military for things like the healthcare, and- at any time after they've signed, including after their retired and possibly on a fixed income, that deal can be changed.

They don't deserve the healthcare because they were in the military- they deserve the healtcare because it was part of the contract they signed, and then performed fully on.

IOW, you go to bed one day getting a certain treatment free or deeply discounted, and you wake up the next day and it's $500/month more. You paid for that with your time, lower pay during your peak earning years (meaning your nest-egg is smaller), and service, and it gets taken away without you having a say in it.

Imagine going to work for a company for 1 year, at a lower salary than you'd get somewhere else, but with one of the provisions being given an Aston Martin DB7 at the end of the contract. You completely perform the contract, get the car, and drive it for a few weeks. Then one day, you walk out and your Aston is gone, replaced by a Mini Cooper...that you have to pay for if you want to keep it.

And the court says that's OK.

Then, 2 years later, you're told that you're not laying enough for the Mini, so you'll have to pay more.

And the court says that's OK.

It's worst for people covered by stop-loss orders (not allowed to retire) or those who get recalled from civilian life (because they have critical skills). The latter usually only occurs to those in the reserves, but if your skills are mission critical, you can expect a call. This covers a lot of people in the medical fields, for instance, or expertise in things like nuclear engines for ships. Much of the military medical force has been allowed to go into the reserves- saving the military money- but with the understanding they can be called up if needed.

That happened to my Dad: he got called up for Desert Storm while moving his practice from a rental into a building he and other MDs were erecting. He had 3 days to close his practice & report for duty. He had to fire his staff. He was out of the country for half a year. He was still bound to erect the building- especially since he wanted a practice to return to- and it nearly wiped out his entire savings. He got paid at his rank's salary...but it was @1/5 what he was making in private practice. He still hasn't recovered in the intervening years, and is nearing retirement.

How sweet a deal is that?

 

[JamesonCourage]

They don't deserve the healthcare because they were in the military- they deserve the healtcare because it was part of the contract they signed, and then performed fully on.

I kinda don't agree with this. I don't think people deserve things just because people are willing to promise it to them (but don't get me wrong -I do want them, and everyone else, to have healthcare).

If some CEO of a giant corporation gets a billion dollars when he steps down (or is forced out) because it was in his contract, I don't think he deserves it. Because I don't think anyone can really earn that kind of money. So I just can't intellectually line up on "because it was promised to them, and they held up there end, they deserve it."

Again, I do think they deserve healthcare. Because I think people deserve it.

IOW, you go to bed one day getting a certain treatment free or deeply discounted, and you wake up the next day and it's $500/month more. You paid for that with your time, lower pay during your peak earning years (meaning your nest-egg is smaller), and service, and it gets taken away without you having a say in it.

Yeah, that really, really blows. For everyone that it happens to, in every field, to civilian or vet.

Imagine going to work for a company for 1 year, at a lower salary than you'd get somewhere else, but with one of the provisions being given an Aston Martin DB7 at the end of the contract. You completely perform the contract, get the car, and drive it for a few weeks. Then one day, you walk out and your Aston is gone, replaced by a Mini Cooper...that you have to pay for if you want to keep it.

And the court says that's OK.

Then, 2 years later, you're told that you're not laying enough for the Mini, so you'll thave to pay more.

And the court says that's OK.

I'd feel ripped off. Luckily, as an outside observer, I'm not going to let those feelings guide my thoughts.

Plus, healthcare is an entirely different ballgame than a fancy car (I'm not a car guy anyway, so I couldn't even pick your Aston Martin out of a lineup, much less tell you why it's so good).

It's worst for people covered by stop-loss orders (not allowed to retire) or those who get recalled from civilian life (because they have critical skills). The latter usually only occurs to those in the reserves, but if your skills are mission critical, you can expect a call. This covers a lot of people in the medical fields, for instance, or expertise in things like nuclear engines for ships. Much of the military medical force has been allowed to go into the reserves- saving the military money- but with the understanding they can be called up if needed.

A policy I don't agree with. You should be able to quit. Really. In an all volunteer army, that should be the way it should work.

I'm kinda curious, at this point, if you'd rather talk about idealistic shoulds, or pragmatic shoulds. Like, stuff that we should be doing (and could feasibly afford, etc.) but that would never pass into law, or would you rather talk about stuff that could theoretically come to pass (taking into account current politics, etc.). Both are totally fine with me.

That happened to my Dad: he got called up for Desert Storm while moving his practice from a rental into a building he and other MDs were erecting. He had 3 days to close his practice & report for duty. He had to fire his staff. He was out of the country for half a year. He was still bound to erect the building- especially since he wanted a practice to return to- and it nearly wiped out his entire savings. He got paid at his rank's salary...but it was @1/5 what he was making in private practice. He still hasn't recovered in the intervening years, and is nearing retirement.

How sweet a deal is that?

It's crap. And it shouldn't happen, ideally (as in, I think that the government shouldn't be able to do it). He got boned. That doesn't change my view that healthcare should be for everyone, and that I can't quite sympathize more with a group of people that (for the majority) work a few years to get what should be a basic human right. I sympathize with everyone who doesn't have healthcare. Vets get no special treatment from me when it comes to basic rights like that.

But that last part leads us back to me knowing if you want to talk about ideals or pragmatic stuff.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Interesting. I wonder if this is going to affect TriCare payouts to service providers. Being one of those providers, I can tell you that they payout better than most, if not all other insurance companies (at least in my experience). It has a higher payout, which is something that adds to how sustainable the TriCare will be in the future. They also have more requirements, thought not actually higher standards, than other insurance companies. It may require that payouts be decreased in order to avoid increasing the amount military members put into their health coverage, and there are plenty of lobbyist working to prevent that.

It's interesting that the republican party is generally seen as the pro-military party, but the truth seems to be that they are pro-military as long as it serves the interests of their corporate backers. Well, you get what you vote for, I guess.

 

[gamerprinter]

I kinda don't agree with this. I don't think people deserve things just because people are willing to promise it to them (but don't get me wrong -I do want them, and everyone else, to have healthcare).

Forgot about health care for a second, are you saying if you enter a contract to say purchase a car for $499 for 5 years, and at the end of the contract you own the car, but its OK, if the company you sign the contract with negates the deal, and after paying all that money, you don't get to own the car, because you don't deserve it? (That's essentially what you're saying.)

Its got nothing to do with deserve, it simply has to do with honoring the terms of a contract, which now the government is in breach of that contract. How is that OK?

 

[WayneLigon]

I think free unlimited lifetime healthcare (including psychological care) should be had by people who served in combat. If you're going to put your life on the line, that's the least owed to you especially in case something goes wrong. All disabled veterans unable to work should have guaranteed housing, as well, especially if they can still serve in an advisory capacity. A certain level of that care should be available to all serving and retired military. I don't think you should be automatically grandfathering in everyone as 'the deal' changes if that lessens the benefits - if you entered while a certain level of care was being offered, that's what you should be receive. I'm very much in favor of reducing, say, the number of standing nuclear missiles or not building the absolute latest and greatest whatfor to fund this.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Forgot about health care for a second, are you saying if you enter a contract to say purchase a car for $499 for 5 years, and at the end of the contract you own the car, but its OK, if the company you sign the contract with negates the deal, and after paying all that money, you don't get to own the car, because you don't deserve it? (That's essentially what you're saying.)

No, it's not what I'm saying. I will converse civilly with you on this when you can do so. After this post, you get nothing from me unless you stop telling me what I'm saying.

Its got nothing to do with deserve

That's literally the word Danny used (that I replied to). Twice.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I kinda don't agree with this. I don't think people deserve things just because people are willing to promise it to them (but don't get me wrong -I do want them, and everyone else, to have healthcare).

It isn't a mere promise, it is a contract that has been fully performed by one side. Those are 2 very different things.

CEO salary is a bit of a different issue. The salaries we see in the states are an economic drag on those companies that we simply don't see anywhere else in the world. Those are contracts that should not be made*, IMHO, but once the contracts are made and performed on, they should be honored unless voided or altered by the courts in some way.

I'd feel ripped off. Luckily, as an outside observer, I'm not going to let those feelings guide my thoughts.

Plus, healthcare is an entirely different ballgame than a fancy car.

The core issue is identical: honoring the bargained-for reward of completing a legally binding contract.

I'm kinda curious, at this point, if you'd rather talk about idealistic shoulds, or pragmatic shoulds.

Willing to discuss both.

That doesn't change my view that healthcare should be for everyone, and that I can't quite sympathize more with a group of people that (for the majority) work a few years to get what should be a basic human right. I sympathize with everyone who doesn't have healthcare. Vets get no special treatment from me when it comes to basic rights like that.

This isn't a case of arguing whether or not affordable healthcare should be available for everyone. It should.

The issue here is that a group that singed contracts that included affordable healthcare are having it incrementally and retroactively excised from the contracts they signed.

Keeping the example entirely within the healthcare world, imagine the USA offered a single payer universal health care system (SPUHCS) in which different levels of care were free for life, depending on how you chose to be taxed while you were working. Weighing your options, you opted for the medium level, which will cost you @15% more of your salary. You get taxed at that rate and enjoy your coverage. Eventually, you retire.

A few years later, you are told that, at your SPUHCS level, your covered services will not be free, but will have a co-pay.

A few years later, you're told the co-pay will now be accompanied by a $700 annual fee. Which becomes $1500, then $3000 over the next few years.

Because that is what is happening.





* That they are says more about the way CEOs are chosen and compensated in the USA vs everywhere else than the underlying nature of contract law in general.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's literally the word Danny used (that I replied to). Twice.

Let me clarify: they do not "deserve" the healthcare in an abstract sense. They "deserve" it because they have EARNED it as part of the contract that they served under. That is a legal standard; that's how it would be described in an old court of equity or a modern contracts case. It is part of the compensation clause of a contract. It's a fundamental part of the operations of contract law.