Politics
Obama Health-Care Hikes Hit Military, Spare Unions; Vets Vow to Fight
Around the State

Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, President Barack Obama, and Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta
The sharply higher prices reportedly are designed to push service members and veterans out of the military's Tricare program and into Obamacare's insurance exchanges. The administration believes the move will cut Tricare costs by $1.8 billion in fiscal 2013 and $12.9 billion by 2017.
According to one congressional estimate, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health coverage would pay $2,048 under the new price schedule.
The plan would take effect after the 2012 elections.
"It is unconscionable, utterly disrespectful and obviously evidences the disdain the Obama administration has for our warriors, to whom he should apologize," said Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation.
West, a retired Army colonel, added that the Obama plan -- which does not raise the rates on unionized civilian employees in the Defense Department -- is larded with politics.
"President Obama believes health care should be free for his union cronies and entitlement-centered political base, but not for those exceptional men and women who serve or have served to keep us free," West complained.
Rep. Tom Rooney, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, also assailed the initiative.
“I am deeply disturbed by President Obama's plan to drive Tricare premiums so high that military retirees are forced out of the health-care plans we promised them and into the new entitlement programs created by Obamacare," said Rooney, R-Tequesta.
"Asking our troops and military retirees to shoulder the burden of Washington's overspending is simply wrong, and I will strongly oppose any effort by the president to break our commitments to our veterans by pricing them out of the health-care benefits they earned and deserve."
The 2.1 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars, vowing to fight the Obama plan, issued this statement:
“A secure America needs a strong military, and whether one serves honorably for four years or 40, messing with military pay and benefits is a clear signal to the troops and their families that the budget is more important than people.
"That is going to seriously hurt recruiting and retention, and potentially end the all-volunteer force, because nobody wants to work for an ungrateful employer in a vocation as inherently dangerous as ours.”
On top of the premium increases, veterans would also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life. And some benefits will become “means-tested," similar to social programs.
"This will be treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service," said Bill Gertz, a national security affairs expert who broke the story on the Washington Free Beacon website.
John Hayward, a conservative commentator at Human Events, called the Obama plan "part of an overall strategy to dump as many Americans as possible into budget-blasting 'public exchanges,' which were already on course to cost at least $460 billion by 2019."
A Heritage Foundation study last year concluded that those costs could more than double if enough private-sector employers decide to wash their hands of Obamacare and shift their employees to the insurance exchanges.
"That study didn’t anticipate a tidal wave of military veterans sliding into the deficit pit," Hayward noted.
The administration's proposed budget would slash overall Pentagon spending by $487 billion.
The anticipated Tricare savings of $12.9 billion over five years represent a tiny sliver of the military's budget. Indeed, Gertz noted, it's even less than the $20.5 billion Obama's Department of Energy expended on green energy grants and loans, "80 percent of which went to companies owned or tied to Mr. Obama’s top fundraisers."
But for military personnel and veterans, the Tricare shuffle adds up to real money.
Obama's plan calls for increases between 30 percent and 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent -- more than three times current levels -- Gertz reported.
Retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley, of the Military Officers Association of America, pledged a united front in fighting the proposed health-care increases, which would require congressional approval.
“We think it’s absolutely wrong,” she told the Free Beacon. “This is a breach of faith."
Contact Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341.

Comments (72)
I WAS TOLD AS A USAF RETIREE THAT I WOULD HAVE MED BENEFITS FOR LIFE , I SEE THAT QUICKLY BECOMING ANOTHER LIE, YES YOU ARE RIGHT WITH NO BENEFITS, NO SUPPORT, THIS COUNTRYS MILITARY WILL BECOME VERY WEAK,
I ONLY HOPE THE GREEDY ARE NOW HAPPY THAT THEY HAVE A GREAT PRESIDENT, IT JUST BLOWS MY MIND,
I read it and wept. An E-8 vet, I am appalled that this nation, who stands as a bulwark for freedom, honesty, transparency values, and a host of other honorable positions, thinks that their military personnel are just like the herd of "entitlement Americans"... means testing?.. after what we did FOR YOU without hesitation? ... gawd, where does it end? We came...we contracted... we laid down our lives... and now you -- you pencil pushing desk drivers want us to give up part of our agreement so you can spend on social stuff that we can't afford, and we are going to sit for it. Think again Commander in Cheat, maybe where you come from.... they do things like this, but this is America, and we have honor and respect for our military here. Go home ASAP after the National Get It Together on November 4th and stay there.
At Ease.
Yeah, I know, the 3 days of arguments will lead you to say that Obamacare is in trouble.
But is it?
Over the entire history of the United States, only very RARELY has the supreme court EVER shut down a signature presidential achievement.
We have to remember what the purpose of the supreme court is; that is, to review the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the law, and not legislate.
We also have to remember that the justices on the Supreme Court are highly intelligent individuals, and surely they are aware of the repercussions of their actions of shutting down a signature legislative act by a president.
Furthermore, we remember that when congressional acts have indeed been shut down, history tells us that the executie branch has the ability to increase the number of justices, to appoint justices on party lines, and to readmit an act that is stricken down.
The justices KNOW this.
We ALSO know that on the way to the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act has received very similar critisms from judges who were conservative and still upheld the act as constitutional.
Furthermore, before conservatives go crazy over Obama questioning the Supreme Court, let us also remember that President Reagan has criticised Judicial Activism as well, and the criticism of the Supreme Court is historically a REPUBLICAN idea (as was the health care mandate, ironically).
Let's look at the actual constitutionality of the act.
Chief Justice Roberts himself is known (and I'm paraphrasing) to have the philosophy that anything that "considerably" affects interstate commerce is something that the government CAN regulate.
All judges can reasonably conclude that LACK of health care insurance CONSIDERABLY affects the Health Care Market.
While 4 judges are pretty much in the bag on supporting the Act, Kennedy and Roberts are who we look at to swing the decision to UPHOLDING Obamacare.
Surely Justice Kennedy understands the argument of the government:
On questioning the content of the argument, "The government's argument [is] this -- and maybe I won't state it accurately. It is true that the noninsured young adult is, in fact, an actuarial reality insofar as our allocation of health services, insofar as the way health insurance companies figure risks. That person who is sitting at home in his or her living room doing nothing is an actuarial reality that can and must be measured for health service purposes."
And he knows that individuals without insurance ARE in the market:
"But they are in the market in the sense that they are creating a risk that the market must account for."
AND surely he understands the jurisdiction of the government:
"And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets -- stipulate two markets -- the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.
That's my concern in the case."
And even Justice Roberts understands the argument:
On responding to WHAT the government is regulating,
"I think you're just repeating the idea that this is the regulation of the method of payment. And I understand that argument. And it may be a good one."
And Roberts understands that this is DIFFERENT from any other market:
"Everybody is in this market, so that makes it very different than the market for cars or the other hypotheticals that you came up with, and all they're regulating is how you pay for it."
And Roberts understands the power of the government:
"Well, surely regulation includes the power to promote. Since the New Deal we've said that regulation in -- there is a market in agricultural products; Congress has the power to subsidize, to limit production, all sorts of things."
And Roberts further understands the differentiation of this health care market.
"No, no, that's not -- I don't think that's fair, because not everybody is going to enter the mortgage market. The government's position is that almost everybody is going to enter the health care market."
Clearly we see that the two justices that are the only two that we think have the ability to side with the democrats understand and perhaps even lean towards the constitutionality of the act.
If the Act is struck down, the Supreme Court KNOWS their reputation will be questioned (after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United).
Put all this together, and the idea that SCOTUS has very RARELY ever struck down a major legislative signature piece of legislation, and we come to a conclusion.
Obamacare is the future of health care in this country, and rightfully so.
-Mike
#politicodiary
Seems fair to raise the rates.
You Bash President Bush for the wars, while Protecting & Applauding Clinton for Blindly Bombing the crap out of Iraq which killed far more innocent people, not to mention those in Serbia! Liberals Protect Obama for his role in Libya, his complete & arrogant disregard for the Constitution & Bill of Rights, his use of Force on Americans to buy Insurance that provides Free Abortion Pills, stomping on Religious freedom & Conscience protections, his disgusting disrespect for our Military men who are dying while he apologizes to our enemies for some burned books.....Obama has been a disgrace as a leader! He is corrupt, wasteful, and has done more to hurt America than to help us, yet Liberals believe he walks on water. God help America, and may He open the eyes of the Blind Liberal Hypocrites who curse the Blessings of the Country God has Blessed the most!
How is killing innocent women and children in illegal foreign invasions ensuring my health? The military personnel have evolved into merely an organization to accomplice to murder.
Don't think you are doing me a favor.
On another note: A vote for Ron Paul will go a long way toward curbing the lobbyist-run establishment in D.C., and get our country back on-track. Then, we can all stop these unecessary attacks on each other and once again begin to place trust our government. Please get out and vote. Your country needs you!!
Instead of insinuating that it's President Obama's fault, you should blame Republicans who did whatever they could to funnel taxpayer dollars to their corporate buddies who made trillions of dollars in war profits, bad loans, and deceptive financial deals. Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt. and he started this financial mess when he deregulated Wall Street firms. Under George W. Bush, the national debt went from $5 trillion to $12 trillion.
Whether it is war, or bank bailouts, or tax breaks, or private prisons, or no bid contracts, or school vouchers, or food stamps, or security contractors, or the student loan market, or the privatization of social security, the goal of the modern Republican is to expose taxpayer dollars to the open market and let big business and corporations fight for it like kids collecting candy from a smash piñata. Republicans and even some democrats know that they will get their share of candy.
It is quite a dishonest and devious tactic to criticize unpopular unionized civilians when it is actually big business and corporations that screwed the soldiers and got the best deals.
50% of you don't pay taxes... Where's the free money? It comes out of my pocket and into the pockets of Obama supporters.
However, I use the VA in Leavenworth KS regularly and not because I have to but because I have had nothing but good care from good caring people. Shame on you for an irresponsible statement like that disparaging the entire VA system. How ungreatful can you be.
By the way Dean, most of us aren't retired Colonels and we got paid next to nothing for years. We were contracted to do a job in pretty crappy situations with specified benifits promised in the end for those who made it. We stood by our obligation to defend this country, now the country needs to stand by it's obligation to every service man and women.
The articel doesnt bother to mention what the union employees are currently paying, I bet it's a more than what the military are paying.
By the way Dean, most of us aren't retired Colonels and we got paid next to nothing for years. We were contracted to do a job in pretty crappy situations with specified benifits promised in the end for those who made it. We stood by our obligation to defend this country, now the country needs to stand by it's obligation to every service man and women.
promised rewards and land, and kept extending their service (different issues than today, but still they were being wronged), some of his legions lay down their shields and weapons and refused to march. This included his favorites, the legendary 10th legion. Just saying.
Terry K. Murphy
MSgt USMC Retired
Current stats also say civilian government workers, especially federal workers, receive more pay, allowances, and benifits than the average civilian counterpart.
As a teacher, my family would have had to pay more than that $3,200 out-of-pocket a year figure you site for health care, but being retired military (enlisted), it was less costly to buy my own supplement and pay for mine and my family's health care.
So, you too, quit whining about that "poor" GS-13. In today's non-government work-world, $3,200 a year for health care is a bargin.
Leave a Comment on This Story