so if Congress cuts health care benefits for military veterans then there's not much of a point for people to join up. if you know that you're wounded and that the government you took a bullet for is just gonna abandon you, then why would you put your ass on the line?

Weaver95: so if Congress cuts health care benefits for military veterans then there's not much of a point for people to join up. if you know that you're wounded and that the government you took a bullet for is just gonna abandon you, then why would you put your ass on the line?


That big fat E-4 paycheck, of course. You know it's worth almost 12 bucks an hour!

suck an egg, congress.

I see the GOP's plan to 'starve the beast' is working as planned.

Well, that didn't take long. Just as soon as the yellow ribbons come off the cars, the cuts begin. All you'll see is that faded area on the car where the magnet used to be.

We support our troops!!!! Wait, how much? F*ck that!

FormlessOne:
Universal healthcare. Stop making illness and death profitable, and start making life profitable instead.

i'm not talking about universal health care (which is a discussion for another time/thread), i'm talking about wounded combat veterans. these folks put their asses on the line for their country and lost body parts. I think we owe it to them to cover their medical costs.

I don't want to ever see this country turning to a wounded vet and saying 'gee, thanks for your service and all but due to budget cuts we can't help you recover from getting your legs blown off'.

Because once again everyone wants to ignore the biggest issue in the US economy - healty care costs too much money.

The issue is not the US government providing healthcare. It's the product itself. This move simply dumps people into private healthcare they can't afford.

This is not a solution.

Weaver95: FormlessOne:
Universal healthcare. Stop making illness and death profitable, and start making life profitable instead.

i'm not talking about universal health care (which is a discussion for another time/thread), i'm talking about wounded combat veterans. these folks put their asses on the line for their country and lost body parts. I think we owe it to them to cover their medical costs.

I don't want to ever see this country turning to a wounded vet and saying 'gee, thanks for your service and all but due to budget cuts we can't help you recover from getting your legs blown off'.

I am totally with you. I would love to see universal healthcare, but that is a totally different debate than this one. We all owe our lives and our freedom to our servicemen and women. Anyone willing to put their life on the line for me deserves to get the best healthcare available. I may not always agree with the politicians who send them in harm's way, but those willing to be put there deserve our allegiance to them when they suffer as a result. Any politician claiming otherwise deserves to get to use their own health benefits immediately.

Weaver95: i'm talking about wounded combat veterans. these folks put their asses on the line for their country and lost body parts. I think we owe it to them to cover their medical costs.

If I'm following this correctly, this does not impact VA funding which handles service-connected care. Yet. VA funding will be cut at some point, they always do it when the full cost of "those that have borne the battle" is tallied up.

This is just about TriCare which is for retired military, but that also impacts those who were medically retired. If you are more than 50% disabled by the medical board, I think they give you a blue card, pension, and enrollment in TriCare. If they are grandfathered in, great. But, if they are impacted, any private care they are getting for their injuries would be under fire from this kind of cut. They can still go to the VA, but it has to be rated by the VA as a service-connected injury.

Is there really nothing above debt-wanking anymore?

"We can't make affordable treatment for life-threatening illnesses available to everybody. What about the debt?!"
"We can't fund research for more potentially life-saving medicine. What about the debt?!"
"We can't take care of the people who literally put the country before their own lives. What about the debt!?"

STFU and scratch the check. If you don't end up paying for it through longer-living tax payers you'll at least earn a little good karma.

As an Army vet retired on a disability, I'm getting a kick....

Seriously, the lead of that story is so misleading. What's under discussion is an increase in the annual enrollment fee, Yes, there is an annual fee for Tricare and has been for a number of years. There's also a small ($12) co-pay for doctor visits, and has been for a number of years. Health care has NEVER been completely free for most retirees, unless you deal exclusively with the VA. Saying that, I have no problem with an increase in the annual fee, which is a huge bargain at less than $500 for Tricare prime family coverage. The coverage (which includes very low co-pay prescription coverage) would cost tens of thousands of dollars for comparable private insurance, so even a 100% increase would still leave it a bargain.

Given the horrible finances of the government, there should be very few programs immune to some sort of increase.

There are a lot of farking veterans out there, and we promised them lifetime health care. That's really farking expensive. But the solution to cutting future costs of the VA is not to go back on what we promised them. It's to cut the size of the military. Smaller military = fewer vets in the future.

Oh yeah, and how about not entering unnecessary wars? It's just a wee bit more expensive to provide lifetime coverage for a guy with an amputation and TBI by the age of 24 than it is to cover a guy that comes wandering in 25 years after his service looking for some high blood pressure pills and Viagra.

NewportBarGuy: This is just about TriCare which is for retired military,

Speaker2Animals: Seriously, the lead of that story is so misleading.

Yeah, I didn't RTFA. I stand by my statement, though.

This is not what we farking meant by cutting the Pentagon's budget.

GAT_00: This is not what we farking meant by cutting the Pentagon's budget.

apparently, having veterans survive to old age was some sort of mistake. we can spend trillions of dollars on new weapon systems but can't spare an extra trillion to make sure we keep our promise to care for our veterans.

FloydA: Weaver95: so if Congress cuts health care benefits for military veterans then there's not much of a point for people to join up. if you know that you're wounded and that the government you took a bullet for is just gonna abandon you, then why would you put your ass on the line?


That big fat E-4 paycheck, of course. You know it's worth almost 12 bucks an hour!

That's like double minimum wage! I hear you get to travel to exotic places too.

Weaver95: apparently, having veterans survive to old age was some sort of mistake.


They want live babies so they can grow up and become dead soldiers.

GreenAdder: Weaver95: apparently, having veterans survive to old age was some sort of mistake.

[i.imgur.com image 200x300]
They want live babies so they can grow up and become dead soldiers.

Maybe I'm naive (and I'm not trying to challenge either of your posts) but I don't understand this kind of thinking. You can't make money off a corpse--or if you can, you can't for too long. Isn't it in our best interest to make sure that our veterans live long, productive lives of gainful disposable income? Even if you live to be 90 you still need to buy food and pay bills.

Personally, I find it nigh-antisocial to try to monetize life, but if you must then isn't a longer lifespan more profitable?

The Great EZE: You can't make money off a corpse--or if you can, you can't for too long.

That's no the idea. You milk them for premiums most of their life, but try to bug out the second something life threatening shows up. That's a net profit. And costs only increase by age. So a young death is profitable to a health care company.

Speaker2Animals: As an Army vet retired on a disability, I'm getting a kick....

Seriously, the lead of that story is so misleading. What's under discussion is an increase in the annual enrollment fee, Yes, there is an annual fee for Tricare and has been for a number of years. There's also a small ($12) co-pay for doctor visits, and has been for a number of years. Health care has NEVER been completely free for most retirees, unless you deal exclusively with the VA. Saying that, I have no problem with an increase in the annual fee, which is a huge bargain at less than $500 for Tricare prime family coverage. The coverage (which includes very low co-pay prescription coverage) would cost tens of thousands of dollars for comparable private insurance, so even a 100% increase would still leave it a bargain.

Given the horrible finances of the government, there should be very few programs immune to some sort of increase.

this
This
THIS.

GAT_00: The Great EZE: You can't make money off a corpse--or if you can, you can't for too long.

That's no the idea. You milk them for premiums most of their life, but try to bug out the second something life threatening shows up. That's a net profit. And costs only increase by age. So a young death is profitable to a health care company.

Except that's not what's under discussion, Einstein. They're talking about an increase to fees that already exist -- not charging fees to veterans who get free health care. Tricare is a great program, but (and see if you can follow me here) -- it's

not

free.

Speaker2Animals: Seriously, the lead of that story is so misleading. What's under discussion is an increase in the annual enrollment fee, Yes, there is an annual fee for Tricare and has been for a number of years.

Wait a minute.

TFA says "Levin and McCain support establishing an annual enrollment fee for TRICARE for Life, the health care program that now has no fee for participation. Obama had proposed an initial annual fee of $200."

Is that just flat out incorrect?

Somacandra: TFA says "Levin and McCain support establishing an annual enrollment fee for TRICARE for Life, the health care program that now has no fee for participation. Obama had proposed an initial annual fee of $200."

Is that just flat out incorrect?

From Tricare's website, concerning Tricare Prime coverage:

Active duty service members and their families pay no enrollment fees and no out-of-pocket costs for any type of care as long as care is received from the PCM or with a referral.

GAT_00: Somacandra: TFA says "Levin and McCain support establishing an annual enrollment fee for TRICARE for Life, the health care program that now has no fee for participation. Obama had proposed an initial annual fee of $200."

Is that just flat out incorrect?

From Tricare's website, concerning Tricare Prime coverage:

Active duty service members and their families pay no enrollment fees and no out-of-pocket costs for any type of care as long as care is received from the PCM or with a referral.

Concerning Tricare for Life:

When using TFL, you do not pay any enrollment fees, but you must pay Medicare Part B monthly premiums

Oops, those damn facts again.

Makes sense. At this rate, Congress will soon have more people trying to shoot them.

Dear Gov't:

Remember all of those people that you trained to kill and blow stuff up? Protip: Stop pissing them off.

xoxoxo

g.m.d.

Why don't we make cuts to our bloated defense budget before we start cutting medical care to the people who actually defended us?

Keep buying the guns the guys fire, but whatever you do don't take care of them when they come home, right? The military industrial complex has no use for you once you're shot up and 70 years old.

"Republicans and Democrats agree - free life long health care for injured veterans is too expensive and has to go."

Well they have to fund tax cuts for wealthiest Americans and top earning US corporations somehow. Those disabled veterans aren't donating any money to the preferred Political Action Committees so they really don't have much value in the eyes of the Republican elected elite.

NFA: "Republicans and Democrats agree - free life long health care for injured veterans is too expensive and has to go."

Well they have to fund tax cuts for wealthiest Americans and top earning US corporations somehow. Those disabled veterans aren't donating any money to the preferred Political Action Committees so they really don't have much value in the eyes of the Republican elected elite.

Far be it for me to run a "both sides are bad" but this is a bi-partisan attempt to screw veterans over. On some issues (typically to do to health care) the profit motive knows no party lines.

Somacandra: Speaker2Animals: Seriously, the lead of that story is so misleading. What's under discussion is an increase in the annual enrollment fee, Yes, there is an annual fee for Tricare and has been for a number of years.

Wait a minute.

TFA says "Levin and McCain support establishing an annual enrollment fee for TRICARE for Life, the health care program that now has no fee for participation. Obama had proposed an initial annual fee of $200."

Is that just flat out incorrect?

No, Tricare for Life (TFL) is what you get when you hit age 65, or otherwise become medicare eligible. You have to take Part A and B, then TFL acts as a second payer, after medicare pays off. You are no longer eligible for regular tricare when you become medicare eligible.

talk about bullshiat

Maybe we should stop wasting taxpayers money on other things.

cryinoutloud: It's a reality check for the Defense Department, whose budget has nearly doubled to some $700 billion in the 10 years since the Sept. 11 terror attack.

Jesus christ. I don't even care about the healthcare after reading this. Does that even include the farking TSA, or does that come out of some other budget?

Nope, that's Homeland Security, which is a completely different set of spending.

apeiron242: give me doughnuts: Dear Gov't:

Remember all of those people that you trained to kill and blow stuff up? Protip: Stop pissing them off.

xoxoxo

g.m.d.

SRSLY, when this shiat gets real they might side with the people and not the 1%.

HA!

When I read this headline, my first thought was "Oh, you're gonna renege on our deal? OK, but remember: you also taught me to both improvise explosives and effectively employ them".

Medically retired dude's a honey badger. Honey badger don't give a shiat.