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.)...
For the most part, it's not the military itself that doesn't treat its people right, it's the politicians that fund and run the military that do this.
...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?).
You may have a fundamental misunderstanding about this. Nobody gets free healthcare for life after just a few years. If one does not serve a full 20 years and retire honorably, one does not get the health care that Danny and Senator Graham are talking about. Serving 19 years and 364 days is the same as serving only 2 or 4 years as far as this benefit is concerned. Even a medical discharge doesn't grant free health care for life. One gets a percentage rating based on their level of disability and receives that percentage of base pay (split between VA payments and DFAS payments), and can receive free health care for their service related health issues only.
And, in actuality, it's not even a percentage of your straight base pay anymore. It used to be a percentage of your base pay at retirement or discharge, now it's a percentage of the average of your final 36 months of service. One more of those little ways they've eroded the benefits...
If you serve 2, 4, 6, 8 or more years, but short of a full 20, all you receive is temporary health insurance coverage under Tri-Care (currently managed by Humana), that you do not need to pay a premium for, but do pay co-pays. Typically, this lasts 180 days. Afterwards, you can sign up for a temporary premium based service for 18-36 months. I don't know what the premiums are, but I believe they are lower than comparable civilian health insurance. However, after this expires you are on your own (hopefully you'll be working by then and have your own insurance).
As to the VA, they only cover service related health issues. This means you often need to prove that an issue stems from your service before you receive coverage for it - which can be a very complicated, lengthy and frustrating process, and is most definitely not a sure thing.
Not to mention that there is a lot of distrust among military members concerning the VA. Yes, it was big news a while ago. Yes, they made changes and promised to "fix" the system. However, the VA still has very serious problems. These problems will take years to fix - if they ever truly do.
Full health care is only provided after retiring honorably with at least 20 years of service. This obligation is in writing. It's an obligation that the US Government agreed to - and that which Senator Graham wants to "amend"...
I retired with 21 years of service.
Now, before anyone says that even after 20 years, this government provided health care far exceeds that which most civilians have access to and is therefore a really good deal, remember this:
- Many job specialties in the military earn far less than what they would earn in the civilian market. For instance, I was an Aircraft Maintenance/Avionics Craftsman (the equivalent of a dual-qualified FCC Licensed Technician and Airframe/Powerplant Mechanic in the civilian world), and in my last few years I was what's called a Flightline Expediter (the equivalent of a mid-level civilian Airfield Manager). As a low ranking SSgt (equivalent to a mid-level civilian technician/low level supervisor), I made about $35,000 dollar a year in the military (including allowances and before taxes), and would probably have made mid-$50,000 dollar range as a civilian. As a TSgt and Flightline Expediter just before I retired, I made about $45,000 a year (again, with allowances and before taxes), and would have made closer to $75,000 as a civilian.
- Military duty is, on average, far more strenuous and hazardous than comparable civilian work - before even considering the danger of enemy actions. As a civilian, OSHA standards don't take a back-seat to operational necessities. For instance, most civilians don't have to temporarily perform their job on a former Soviet military base that's more toxic waste dump (and possibly radioactive) than it is what we would call a "base" (I did). As a civilian, you don't typically perform your job in austere or hazardous conditions - or at least not without getting premium pay for doing so (the extra $150 dollars a month for a hazardous duty location, even taking into consideration tax-free status while in a combat zone, are far from what could be considered "premium pay"...). So, all in all, 20 years in the military puts far more physical strain on the body and far more exposure to potentially life altering hazards than the same 20 years in a civilian job. As Indiana Jones said, "It's not the years...it's the mileage."
- Lastly, even though all Americans have a target on their back to a certain extent, it's nothing compared to those in the military - and it's not just while in uniform or on active duty. The recent hack on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which garnered every SF86 application going back to the early 2000's, has put every military member - former and active - in the crosshairs. Honestly, I hope it was China that did the hack, since that would mean that the information is relatively safe. God forbid if it was non-State sponsored hackers, and they decide to sell that data to Al-Qaeda or ISIS. They'd have access not just to the addresses of former and active military members, but also their family and friends, social security numbers, and significant biographical information. All Americans have plenty to worry about, but this is a legitimate, explicit threat that most civilians don't have to worry about - and this isn't the only such worry of this sort.
Anyways, as a retiree (not just separated), if I was living in proximity to a military base I could receive all of my health care and prescriptions absolutely free from the base hospital. Of course though, access to certain types of health care, procedures, and certain medications may not be available (for instance, one might be able to get Generic Synthroid, but not non-Generic Synthroid - which might be necessary for some patients - and there isn't much call for a dedicated oncology department or geriatric specialists for active duty military). Since I don't live near a base, I rely on my Tri-Care coverage. Tri-care is a good deal, but it's not entirely free. I do not pay a premium, however I do have to pay co-pays.
Back to the VA for a moment...
I became sick with an autoimmune disease called Graves Disease just as I was retiring. It occurred after my retirement ceremony but before my official retirement date. Since I was still on active duty when I got sick, I was fully covered - at the time. And it's technically a service related health issue. However, I do not trust the VA one bit, and would rather see a civilian doctor while paying the co-pays for visits and medication, than ever deal with the VA.
I currently live in West Palm Beach, Florida. I do not live near one of the notorious VA facilities like the one in Arizona that sparked the most recent "drive" to reform the VA. However, even the VA here in WPB has it's issues. Here, it was a scandal involving pharmacy workers stealing and selling pain medications - medications intended for veterans.
BTW, I purposely characterized this as merely the most recent drive to reform the VA. There have been numerous past initiatives to reform the VA, though it never seems to ever get completely done, and the motivation seems to die off as quickly as the media coverage.
Technically, I could file for disability. With the current state of my health as concerns this, it would likely be a 0% rating. 0% still means "officially disabled" and would qualify me for any considerations that categorization provides (hiring preferences, etc.), but no money. Frankly, the bureaucracy I would have to wade through in order to do this simply isn't worth it to me. The process is prohibitive; most likely due simply to the inefficiency of government, but likely also accepted by policy makers as a beneficial feature.
Anyways, in short, the military is anything but a path for guaranteed wealth and security. The benefits we receive, in most cases, only break even when compared to the sacrifices that are made.
Not to mention that the government, as the representative of the people, has made obligations to those that volunteer for the defense of this country. When they don't live up to their obligations, when they erode and sometimes outright renege on those obligations, then they - and by extension, the American People - have dishonored themselves and those which guaranteed their continued security.
And there's simply no excuse for it...
I'd rather see everyone have healthcare (including active duty members, vets, and civilians), honestly. ...and despite what many people think...as a nation we can afford it...
I agree completely.
I don't think they deserve the healthcare because they served in the military.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I however, think that opinion is absolutely wrong - for the reasons listed above.
)
