Trial Balloon: Force Military Retirees on to Obamacare

[XNavyNuke]

. Budget experts: Move Tricare beneficiaries to Obamacare

. The Defense Department could slash its enormous health care budget by requiring Tricare beneficiaries not on active duty to get health care coverage through Affordable Care Act exchanges, according to several current and former congressional budget experts.

In the past several budget cycles, the Pentagon has sought to reduce its $52 billion health budget by asking Congress to approve cost-savings measures that include increased Tricare fees for retirees, fees for Tricare For Life beneficiaries and cost-shares for active-duty families.

Could have seen this coming.

XNN

[Christian Liberty]

And... why should former hired killers get healthcare at taxpayer expense?

[navy-vet]

And... why should former hired killers get healthcare at taxpayer expense?

Because of a contractual agreement?

[Danke]

Because of a contractual agreement?

Courts stuck down that argument a while back.

[navy-vet]

Courts stuck down that argument a while back.

link?

[navy-vet]

Never mind, I found several references to that effect.
I sit corrected.

[Danke]

link?

Look up George Everett "Bud" Day. There is not a contract one signs for lifetime health care, but recruiters have mentioned it as a benefit. So I believe Col. Day argued it was a verbal contract. But he ultimately lost in court. Congress eventually came up with TRICARE, with Medicare as the primary payer and TRICARE as the secondary payer.

[willwash]

I will be SHOCKED if this thing passes. Even Diane Feinstein won't touch military benefits.

EDIT: a quick check of the source confirmed my suspicions. Army/Navy/Air Force Times is very sensationalist and not very credible with this type of thing. Any time anyone floats any kind of idea, even if it's an obscure member of an obscure committee tasked with an obscure agenda making an off-hand comment, these guys will publish it like it's a done deal.

[XNavyNuke]

And... why should former hired killers get healthcare at taxpayer expense?

What a wonderful paraphrase of Right Honourable Robert Morris concerning "the Gentlemen of the blade" in 1783 while doing his part in fomenting the Newburgh Conspiracy.

XNN

[Christian Liberty]

Because of a contractual agreement?

\

And if I contract to pay you to murder people with stolen money, this is binding because?

Mind, I know some soldiers don't actually kill anyone, but I still don't see how that gives them any kind of an entitlement to have their retirements paid for by the private sector.

The double standard on this website when it comes to soldiers vs other government employees is truly massive.

I will be SHOCKED if this thing passes. Even Diane Feinstein won't touch military benefits.

EDIT: a quick check of the source confirmed my suspicions. Army/Navy/Air Force Times is very sensationalist and not very credible with this type of thing. Any time anyone floats any kind of idea, even if it's an obscure member of an obscure committee tasked with an obscure agenda making an off-hand comment, these guys will publish it like it's a done deal.

Its a shame. Too bad. I'd love to see the sacred cow torn down.

[willwash]

\

And if I contract to pay you to murder people with stolen money, this is binding because?

Mind, I know some soldiers don't actually kill anyone, but I still don't see how that gives them any kind of an entitlement to have their retirements paid for by the private sector.

The double standard on this website when it comes to soldiers vs other government employees is truly massive.



Its a shame. Too bad. I'd love to see the sacred cow torn down.

Normally I'd agree, but remember that a strong standing Navy is specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes pay and benefits for those who serve.

[Occam's Banana]

The Defense Department could slash its enormous health care budget by requiring Tricare beneficiaries not on active duty to get health care coverage through Affordable Care Act exchanges, according to several current and former congressional budget experts.

In the past several budget cycles, the Pentagon has sought to reduce its $52 billion health budget by asking Congress to approve cost-savings measures that include increased Tricare fees for retirees, fees for Tricare For Life beneficiaries and cost-shares for active-duty families.

So the DoD wants to wants to sweep some of its piles under the Obamacare rug rather than under the DoD rug.

And this in the name of "cost savings" ... (but "cost savings" for whom?) Seems legit ...

IOW: This is just another move in the FedGov's budgetary & fiscal shell game. (Visions of "houses of cards" and "deck chairs" also spring to mind ...)

[navy-vet]

Normally I'd agree, but remember that a strong standing Navy is specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes pay and benefits for those who serve.

Brilliant observation! You obviously have a superior understanding of the Constitution over your peers here,myself included...

[willwash]

Brilliant observation! You obviously have a superior understanding of the Constitution over your peers here,myself included...

Not sure if sarcastic, though thanks for the rep...

I;m just saying there is a lot of misplaced hostility towards the military here. I liken it to lib-tard hostility towards guns. Guns are not evil, though the people who use them may be. Militaries (namely, the US military) are not inherently evil--though the governments and politicians that control them can use them for evil purposes.

I agree the US military needs to be throttled back--significantly--to be brought back within its constitutional bounds. Those bounds, however, should not involve outright elimination of or cuts to pay and benefits to those already in the system. Attrition works just fine to accomplish these ends.

[navy-vet]

Not sure if sarcastic, though thanks for the rep...

I;m just saying there is a lot of misplaced hostility towards the military here. I liken it to lib-tard hostility towards guns. Guns are not evil, though the people who use them may be. Militaries (namely, the US military) are not inherently evil--though the governments and politicians that control them can use them for evil purposes.

I agree the US military needs to be throttled back--significantly--to be brought back within its constitutional bounds. Those bounds, however, should not involve outright elimination of or cuts to pay and benefits to those already in the system. Attrition works just fine to accomplish these ends.

No sarcasm at all intended. Your contribution was spot on IMO. The Navy was a vital element in ensuring Americas interests in trade as well as security from foreign threats. Sometimes I believe that we have members in here who are foreign enemies or traitors in disguise as libertarians. You, obviously aren't one of those.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[willwash]

Don't retirement and lifetime medical benefits run contrary to the spirit, if not the word, of:

I wouldn't think so. A permanent, standing Navy is authorized. Armies are authorized on a temporary basis (I agree that our present practice WRT "The Army" exceeds Constitutional mandate). I think the terms of compensation of the service members thereof is a separate issue and not subject to limitation by this clause.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Christian Liberty]

No sarcasm at all intended. Your contribution was spot on IMO. The Navy was a vital element in ensuring Americas interests in trade as well as security from foreign threats. Sometimes I believe that we have members in here who are foreign enemies or traitors in disguise as libertarians. You, obviously aren't one of those.

Not foreign enemies or traitors. Just more radical than some others

Not sure if sarcastic, though thanks for the rep...

I;m just saying there is a lot of misplaced hostility towards the military here. I liken it to lib-tard hostility towards guns. Guns are not evil, though the people who use them may be. Militaries (namely, the US military) are not inherently evil--though the governments and politicians that control them can use them for evil purposes.

I agree the US military needs to be throttled back--significantly--to be brought back within its constitutional bounds. Those bounds, however, should not involve outright elimination of or cuts to pay and benefits to those already in the system. Attrition works just fine to accomplish these ends.

Guns are a tool, an inanimate object. Morals do not apply to "guns." Nonetheless, I do believe there are certain types of weapons that are inherently evil because they CANNOT be used in a just manner. Nuclear weapons for instance. Murray Rothbard brilliantly discusses that point when he talks about war. If a weapon CANNOT be justly pinpointed at a particular enemy, it should not exist.

"Militaries" are not inanimate objects, they are made up of people, all of which are responsible for what they do and what orders they obey.

Normally I'd agree, but remember that a strong standing Navy is specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes pay and benefits for those who serve.

I'm not a constitutionalist. I am an anarcho-capitalist. There are things that are constitutional that aren't right.

I am not trying to pass off my own views as Ron Paul's, though I admire him a lot.