Should we keep the promises we made military members?

Washington doesn't think so.

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

 

Well this should be interesting

 

Here's another article on it:
http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2013/04/military-health-care-reform-included-obamas-budget/62421/
To me changing the rules for those already retired is rerehensable. If changes are necessary they should be brought in over time and not affect the benefits already earned.

 

Interestingly, if you look at how small military retirements are and what these plans cost under the program, you might pay your entire retirement to put yourself and spouse on a plan. In effect, you might lose both your health care and your pension.

 

What you need is a miltary covenant like we have over here...where all local dignatories...councils especially, get publicity for themselves while they mouth off how much support they have for the military and vetrans and pay much lip service to how they intend to help them with housing, health related matters and such...but in reality like pics taken at parades, and raising of flags on armed forces days ant the like...and their staff ignoring all aspects of the covenant and telling homeless troops or those about to be homeless they have no priority over any one else due to their military service. But hey...they get great publicity on the signing of each local covenant...Makes em feel proud I expect...

Tossers...like you...we have em.

 

Are you asking this Guy?

 

I saw a cartoon either last night or this morning, jist of it was: The administration has speant 360 million dollars rolling out a plan to tp provide health insurance to 317 million people.

I will not vouch for the voracity of the statement; but, I did get a chuckle out of it.

 

So 43 million people don't get one million buck share like the others....disgraceful...Pretty expensive lifestyle you buggers have then...

 

~$1 per person doesn't sound all that bad to me.

 

I think it is based on the British Dental insurance model

 

I did some research this morning. On the Obamacare plan, insurance will cost me and my wife $586 each, per month. That's $1,172 per month for the two of us. AND, the plan has a $2,500 deductible per person, so an additional $5,000 per year for the two of us - $416 per month. 1,172 plus 416 is $1,588 per month.

Essentially, such a plan will indeed take away every military retirees health care AND pension. Many enlisted people will actually end up in the hole since the feds (and some states) tax military pensions and the actual take home pay is considerably less than $1,500.

 

What is a "deductible"?

 

In the sense he is using it it means they don't cover the first $2,500 although often it's more complicated. For instance a plan may cover 50% of some charges but once you have payed the detuctable it covers 100%.

I'm not sure I did a very good job of explaining that so if I just confused things or didn't clarify them PLS say so.

 

Cheap at half the price....as Jugs says...you don't want to end up with teeth like ours...What is it? Its only the price of a car or a mortgage...You'll look great in the tin hut on the freeway...Teeth will lead the way into the cities for all us tourists..

 

Its just hard for me to come to terms with all the details surrounding the US healthcare or lack thereof. I'm appalled at the state of these things. What can I say? I don't understand how the US manages to create such a deep hole for its citizens, in this.

 

Its hard for anyone to comment on another country...which is why I tend to do so sarcastilly or with humour...cos we can be as bad as any other in my country. And none of us like outsiders butting in. It never helps.

Saying that...the care and welfare of all within a nation is never a bad idea. But some immediately will call you a communist.

Its not a bad thing to care for all or have an efficient welfare service in any nation. We just all go about it differently...and none of us is perfect. The Brits delude themselves if they think they are any more charitable or well meaning to their own folk as any other nation. We are plainly not. We have no right to lecture others.

 

It's simpler and more complicated than it sounds. Until now, the individual was responsible for his health care - just like his housing, his job, his higher education, and so on. And it wasn't a challenge because health insurance (for most people), was a fairly small bite of your paycheck. Now, under this new plan, health insurance costs are doubling and even tripling for most people. And this is just the first phase, for those who have individual plans, a minority of people. Next year, the group plans (employer shared plans) come under the chopping block and these too will double or triple in cost.

You pay similar costs, though it's disguised in your general tax bill.

In effect, those who work hard and live responsibly will pay for the health care of the lazy and feckless. I don't think anyone minds paying extra for things like pre-existing conditions which might have prevented a responsible person from getting coverage, but most Americans resent subsidizing care for the lazy.

Remember, none of this affects the truly poor who can't afford health care - they are already covered under Medicare/Medicaid and similar programs. The only people who will benefit are those who can afford health insurance, but have refused to buy it.

 

That's the one thing I do understand... :legoman:

I can understand resenting sudsidizing the lazy. Are there many perceived lazy people? Is the standard of living for a person earning a living on a minimal wage not an improvement over social welfare?

In some countries, it's not laziness that is discussed, but poor health habits; smoking, obesity (lack of physical activity), drug abuse, etc. "Why should our tax dollars get spent on people who smoke for twenty years and get lung cancer?"

I believe Japan has discussed, if not implemented (I can't remember) an obesity tax/fee.

I can only hope things work themselves out for you and your family, KB

 

I get that it was/is an individual responsibility, but just reading the wiki-page for the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" gives me a headache.

It seems quite complicated with exceptions for sects and percentages of poverty levels, exchanges and even donut holes.

As someone on the outside, it definitely seems to be one of those things not worth taking the time to understand. As always with things this complicated, its going to have unforeseen consequences for groups of individuals and as always, it won't be the insurance companies suffering.

 

Well it's even more complicated than that. If you don't have insurance and don't have the money to pay for it they still have to treat you for anything that's normally done in an emergency room if you go to one. So in a sense we have universal health care. The problem is it's ineffient and inequitable. The cost tends to fall heaviest on hospitals in poorer urban areas (although they get tax deductions for it so we all pay to some extent). Waiting until something is critical however is often the most costly way to go about it.