Military Retirees & Healthcare

[gamerprinter]

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.

I'm not being uncivil, I simply reframed your exact words - here's those exact words again, especially the bolded part...

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).

Again, it wasn't a promise, it was specific conditions of a contract. For providing an X year commitment at risk of one's life by joining the military, the government provides Y services, and among those Y services is health care. I signed the same contract when I was in the military, so it wasn't some idle promise it was an agreement in a contract. How do people who fulfill their side of a contract, not deserve what was agreed upon.

If anyone signs a legal contract, as long as the signer is not in breach themselves to the terms of the contract, there is an expectation, that the other member of the agreement will fulfill the terms. Not doing so is in breach of a contract. Whether anyone deserves anything or not is meaningless, this is contract law we're discussing and nothing else.

Being a former member of the military, I don't think I "deserve" any rights that non-military do not deserve. That said, having fulfilled my side of a contract, I fully expect the terms in the agreement to be fulfilled. Its not a right that is being denied, rather it is the terms of a contract that is being denied.

Again, I'm not being uncivil, I am simply trying to understand what you're saying - and I don't understand, because you're making no sense at all, and now your being defensive about it.

 

[billd91]

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.

You're touching on a fundamental reason I support public sector unions and collective bargaining. The "people", as in the government, can be a terrible employer because compensation, even long after the service has been rendered, ends up being a political football.

 

[Joker]

What's the rationale for allowing military contracts to be unilaterally altered? I mean, is there a national security reason for it?

It just seems, the way you describe it, that the government is seriously shafting the people that worked for them.

 

[Janx]

What's the rationale for allowing military contracts to be unilaterally altered? I mean, is there a national security reason for it?

It just seems, the way you describe it, that the government is seriously shafting the people that worked for them.

It certainly seems to be a breach in contract, unless the contract says "the government can change the terms"

I would say that the argument that "everyone should have free healthcare but they don't so it doesn't matter if soldiers had their removed" is not really pertinent to the discussion. If you are not a soldier and want free healthcare, that's for you to negotiate a contract with somebody for. Soldiers had a contract, it said we'll pay you in healthcare.

Given that this is also happening in a time where we sent these people to war, and wouldn't let many of them quit, forcing them for multiple tours past their contract, that's pretty shady dealings.

As it also seems that somehow, these soldiers do not have a legal right to contest the breach of contract, that means that folks who fight for our rights and freedoms do not get to enjoy the same benefits.

 

[Umbran]

As it also seems that somehow, these soldiers do not have a legal right to contest the breach of contract, that means that folks who fight for our rights and freedoms do not get to enjoy the same benefits.

Failing to properly care for those who fought for the nation is a tradition stemming back... I think since the formation of the nation.Perhaps it'll be a major topic in the next election cycle?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What's the rationale for allowing military contracts to be unilaterally altered? I mean, is there a national security reason for it?

Nope- it's all about the money. The military's personnel costs are- like in most businesses and institutions- one of their biggest categories.

The problem is that we have a budgetary issue recognized by all, being tied up in a political battle between the "tax & spend "left vs the "cut taxes and spend" right, with the right currently controlling the money flow. They don't want to cut defense spending on equipment- even equipment that the military says it does not need- because THAT spending creates jobs in manufacturing and infrastructure. Cutting personnel costs- either by cutting benefits or by firings and reducing recruitment efforts- has more political will behind it. It's easier to sell, even if the number of jobs lost is the greater, because it is distributed across all constituencies. Those manufacturing/infrastructure jobs are all concentrated in small regions.

It's the difference between firing 40k soldiers from all over the US or altering health care benefits to millions distributed likewise, and the closing of a town's tank factory, costing that community 3000 jobs in one stroke of the pen.

Can you guess which one has better optics for a politician?

It just seems, the way you describe it, that the government is seriously shafting the people that worked for them.

And

As it also seems that somehow, these soldiers do not have a legal right to contest the breach of contract, that means that folks who fight for our rights and freedoms do not get to enjoy the same benefits.

It is exactly the case. And it is extremely difficult- procedurally and practically- to sue the Federal (or State) government.

 

[Scott DeWar]

Here is something that puts twist in it ll:

While the vets, who did more then work - they put their lives on the line - healthcare is diminished or the price increased, those who make the changes in Washington get more pay AND more healthcare benefits while doing nothing more the then sit around griping and fighting with words and acting like a dysfunctional family. Acting like a bunch of spoiled brats, even.

How is that even right?

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Here is something that puts twist in it ll:

While the vets, who did more then work - they put their lives on the line - healthcare is diminished or the price increased, those who make the changes in Washington get more pay AND more healthcare benefits while doing nothing more the then sit around griping and fighting with words and acting like a dysfunctional family. Acting like a bunch of spoiled brats, even.

How is that even right?

Who says it's right? It comes down to "What are you, The Individual, going to do about it?" Politicians get away with it because people are apathetic and there are not enough vigilantes.

Those who serve chose to believe the promises of politicians, those who write and protect themselves from moral culpability with the law.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Like I said, it is difficult to sue the government. The principle of sovereign immunity applies: basically, the government has to consent to being sued.

There are exceptions, but it is rare enough that suing the government has essentially become a litigation specialty in and of itself.

 

[Umbran]

How is that even right?

"Right? Wrong? I'm the one with the elected office!"

It often seems that right action is something government achieves merely on statistical grounds - the Law of Large Numbers applies - rather than by any intent.

Like I said, it is difficult to sue the government. The principle of sovereign immunity applies: basically, the government has to consent to being sued.

So, how hard is it to instead sue the individual legislators? One needs special procedures (impeachment) to bring the President to court - does that hold for members of Congress as well?