You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
McCain open to changes in military health
2011-10-18
[Bloomberg] The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee is recommending that a special committee searching for ways to slash the deficit consider some of President Barack B.O. Obama's proposed changes to health and retirement benefits for the military.

In a letter to the bipartisan panel, Arizona Sen. John Maverick McCain
... the Senator-for-Life from Arizona, former presidential candidate and even more former foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution...
signaled he was open to cost-saving steps in military benefits, a move certain to send shock waves through Congress and among powerful groups of retired officers and veterans resistant to change.

The News Agency that Dare Not be Named obtained a copy of the letter.

The Pentagon's health care costs have skyrocketed from $19 billion in 2001 to $53 billion, but politicians and various groups argue that members of the military and their families sacrifice far more than the average American, with a career that includes long and dangerous deployments overseas that overshadow civilian work. Health and retirement benefits help attract service members to the all-volunteer force.

McCain said he would support establishing an annual enrollment fee for TRICARE for Life, the health care program that has no fee for participation. Obama had proposed an initial annual fee of $200.

"This proposal would be the first such change since Congress established this program in 2001, a period during which national health care costs have risen significantly," the senator wrote.

McCain also urged the so-called supercommittee to consider restricting working-age military retirees and their dependents from enrolling in TRICARE Prime, which has the lowest out-of-pocket expenses. The retirees could still enroll in other TRICARE programs. McCain pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that such a move would save $111 billion over 10 years.

Active-duty personnel still would be enrolled in the program automatically.

McCain, who was Obama's rival for the presidency in 2008, also said he supported Obama's proposal for a commission to review military retirement benefits that should consider changes to the military compensation system. He said he agreed with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
...current SecDef, previously Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta served as President Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997 and was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993....
, who said those currently serving in the military should be "grandfathered" in, so expected benefits aren't reduced.
Posted by:Fred

#5  And now that dishonest S.O.B. McCain is getting ready to complete his backstab of his fellow veterans. What a douchebag. It is now arguable that Veterans would have been better off had McCain never come back from Vietnam.
Posted by: Jeremiah Cleatch5946   2011-10-18 16:35  

#4  if the government was even reasonably honest BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-10-18 15:25  

#3  Cheat soldiers in a middle of a war---smart.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-10-18 13:15  

#2  I would have thought that the government making obtaining due benefits a paperwork nightmare would have resulted in enough savings.

I guess not.
Posted by: gorb   2011-10-18 13:10  

#1  Pay attention - military health care is the 'canary in the coal mine' for medical care. It gets back to the very simple facts that government has promised more than it can or will deliver or will ever be honest about it. Here's more info on the specific program which was set up because it had already reneged on promises made in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. This was part of the 'deferred benefits for lousy pay and working conditions' pitch the government made in place of hard cash for services rendered. Yes, another example of pols making promises for things that would come due when they weren't around and then not properly making budget commitments to cover it.

That said, if the government was even reasonably honest, they could cover the medical costs by providing services and functions at the contemporary period, that is 70s-80s level of procedures, protocols, and pharmaceuticals. However, the community wants, like everyone else, 2011 procedures, protocols and pharmaceuticals which cost much more. Is it really unreasonable to have to pay something for such that didn't even exist when the original 'promise' was made?

Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-10-18 08:07  

00:00