Is this how REPUBLICANS support the TROOPs?

Military Update: Joint Chiefs to back higher TRICARE fees

By Tom Philpott

January 1 2006

The Joint Chiefs of Staff will endorse a Defense Department plan to raise TRICARE fees sharply over the next three years for under-65 retirees and their families, senior military officers said.

The chiefs are doing so because they're alarmed that soaring health care costs are crimping dollars for higher-priority programs, the officers said.

One officer described a likely scenario, early in 2006, of the nation's top military leaders sitting shoulder to shoulder before Congress' armed services committees, testifying that medical costs were now a critical readiness issue.

Higher TRICARE fees for younger retirees also will be endorsed in the Quadrennial Defense Review report. The chiefs are completing the report to propose a realignment of programs to meet future needs. The review's recommendations are expected to be unveiled in early February, when the Bush administration sends its 2007 defense budget request to Congress.

The "24-star" endorsement is a reference to the six four-star officers who make up the Joint Chiefs: the chairman, the vice chairman and the top officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The endorsement is seen as necessary to persuade Congress to accept the first TRICARE fee increases in a decade - then help insulate supportive lawmakers from the wrath of angry retirees.

As first reported here, defense officials want annual enrollment fees for TRICARE Prime, the military's managed-care plan, to more than triple by October 2008 for working-age retired officers. They would go from $230 for an individual - and $460 for family coverage - to $750 and $1,500, respectively.

The fees would double - to $450 and $900, respectively - for under-65 enlisted retirees.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-48017sy0jan01,0,4604752,print.story?coll+dp-news-local-final

This Is How Republicans Support Our Troops. Put aside the fact that most Republicans who trumpet the war won't enlist to fight in it, and put aside the fact that at the pro-war rally in DC this month, only 400 people showed up. Instead, you need look no further then then 109th Congress to see exactly how Republicans, who ran in 2004 ona ticket of soldier support, don't give a damn about our troops. Soldiers wounded in the line of duty (and not properly armored by our cash-strapped military) receiving bills while in the hospital recouperating. Senate Republicans voting against body armor, health care and veteran's benefits for soldiers. It's obvious that Republicans love to talk the talk, but they never walk the walk, and it's high time we made them, or kick them out when they don't.
http://www.fromtheroots.org/story/2005/10/14/123818/26

More:
http://stillfighting.blogspot.com/2005/10/saturdays-links_22.html



July 21, 2004
How Republicans Support Our Troops Politics

The latest in a long line of Republican moves to cut support for US troops and veterans — this AP story is more than a little bizarre.

In a nearly straight party-line vote, House Republicans today voted "to remove a $500 million expansion of the housing program from a $10 billion military construction bill for next year."

Then they turned right around and put forward a free-standing bill (i.e., one that wasn't part of a larger spending bill) that did "exactly the opposite — expanding the same family military housing program by $500 million." This bill the Republicans supported, and it passed 423-0.

You see, the Senate will never pass the free-standing bill, and its only purpose is to enable House Republicans to say they voted for it. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, said the bill would end up in a "trash heap of fig leaves."

What is it with these Republicans? They screw the troops every chance they get. They go out of their way to screw them.

More:
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/07/how_republicans.htm

I know our only insurance is Tricare-my DH served in time of peace- and I imagine many other DUers fall into this category. That's not even taking into consideration soldiers who have lost so much more, like body parts and their mental health. :-(

..he's been promised full coverage the rest of his life, now this?

Sidebar: Yet if we don't support the current war, we don't support the troops? Crazy, isn't it.

Hope our 2006 candidates are paying attention to what "supporting the troops" really means, and drive it home :)

100% coverage, which they are currently trying to renege on. :-(
Catchawave, where does this site come from? What is The Daily Press?
I notice the DU link on the link you reference.
Thanks!

Strange? I just copy/pasted the article link to follow the first few paragraphs.

Also, the DU link is my OP. Don't know how that happened????

regularly? Where'd it come from? I'm just trying to figure out how to get to there from here, besides DU.
Also, how is it affiliated w/the military?

Here ya go: http://www.dailypress.com/

You can search tricare and it will bring up two articles on the subject.

These may just be on their online edition, though a daily newspaper in our very heavily populated military area.

the rest of his life?" He was never promised by the guv'ment, the recruiters lied to him. That's how the Repukes support the troops--when they need them to die and be maimed to make some extra cash, they support sending them to war. When they come home and need help, they call them liars. :sarcasm:

Remember President Hoover was the President that sent Eisenhower and MacArthur against the Vets from WWI.

Recently,I was rebuked in my local paper,for stating that this administration is NOT supporting its' veterans.
http://thedailylight.com/articles/2006/01/03/dailylight/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/02%20letters.txt

Would you mind writing a little blurb about the Tricare increases and how they've affected your family?I already responded to the most vicious letter,but didn't have this info.I'd be forever in your debt.
http://thedailylight.com/articles/2006/01/11/dailylight/opinion/
the link to post a letter is at the top of the page.The first letter is the one I responded to.

I'm copying and pasting this to e-mail to myself; if I have questions, I'll PM you.
BTW, how's your baby doing 'over there'?
Also, my husband is retired, so we haven't been affected yet. I don't know what future impact this will have, but will possibly be horrific for many.

I am waiting to hear if my son has had surgery yet or not(he's in germany).His surgery had been bumped 6 times since 8/31 due to the massive influx of orthopedic injuries.I know he's ok now,but no word yet.Thank you so much.I owe you.

have to say. But I did remember your son was awaiting surgery. It sure would be nice, since he's waited this long, if they would send him home!
I'll be in touch, and you don't owe me a thing. I'm honored. :hug:

:loveya:
I'll keep this post going

it is critical that we keep these issues at the forefront.These will be the campaign issues for 2006

Military Update: TRICARE plan unlikely to yield high savings
By TOM PHILPOTT
January 8, 2006
The Bush administration could face a credibility challenge if TRICARE officials tell Congress that plans to raise the insurance program's fees and deductibles for under-65 retirees and their families would save $25 billion over eight years, some Pentagon analysts said.

TRICARE officials have told the Joint Chiefs of Staff the same thing. "Somebody needs to throw the (penalty) flag at the analysis behind these dollars promised," said an official who's studied the savings estimates. "That's where the whole thing falls apart, in my view."

An interview with TRICARE's top financial analyst couldn't be arranged for this column. Senior defense officials aren't likely to defend the cost figures until the 2007 defense budget request and the Quadrennial Defense Review are released next month, when the planned increases are expected to be unveiled officially.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-51473sy0jan08,1,5560069.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Quadrennial Defense Review? Does this encompass current soldiers serving in that senseless war in Iraq, and the debilitating wounds incurred from said senseless war?

Or better yet, in body bags!

Once the troops are used up, they throw them out on the streets to fend for themselves as if they were garbage.

1/6/2006
Medicare Reimbursement Rates - At press time, both the House of Representatives and Senate were still working to sort out differences between their versions of the reconciliation packages, H.R. 4241 and S. 1932. One of their main concerns in working out an agreement is consideration of the rate of reimbursement for Medicare providers.

Medicare provider reimbursement rates are based upon an existing formula that is poised to decrease the payments Medicare providers receive by 4.4 percent for 2006.

Since TRICARE provider payments are based on Medicare reimbursement rates, access to care for beneficiaries under TRICARE and TRICARE For Life are directly tied to the Medicare physician payment formula. If these rates fall, fewer providers will take Medicare and TRICARE patients.

NAUS strongly supports the Senate version, which includes a 1-percent reimbursement increase to all healthcare providers paid under the Medicare physician fee schedule. The House bill would cut reimbursement by 4.4 percent.

Avoiding the cut is important because the benefits of TRICARE are not worth much if beneficiaries cannot find a doctor when they need one.


Also........

Under-65 Healthcare - Once again, the Department of Defense (DoD) is looking at increasing the cost share of the TRICARE healthcare program for the under-65 military retiree.

As NAUS has reported, DoD officials have continually expressed concern about the rising costs of military health care (DoD projects costs rising to $64 billion by 2015, an amount equal to 12 percent of the total defense budget). In their remarks, DoD points out that TRICARE Prime enrollment fees for the under-65 retiree have remained unchanged since the fee was set in 1996 at $460 per year for family coverage (an average civilian plan currently costs approximately $2,700 a year). In addition, DoD says that many retirees are returning to TRICARE coverage, leaving employer-sponsored programs (in fact, they say many employers offer incentives to retirees to use TRICARE).

In November, the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation issued a proposal to raise enrollment fees over a three-year period for TRICARE Prime. This proposal and another to increase the level of deductibles for TRICARE Standard aim to counter the overall increasing health care costs DoD faces. The Committee is also discussing the initiation of a TRICARE Standard enrollment fee and an increase in Pharmacy Co-Pays for retail pharmacy purchases.


read the rest here's the source of the above info - http://www.naus.org/medical_news.htm

Am now forwarding it to all the gung-ho Bush's military supporters I know. Alot of Viet Nam vets will not reach 65 for several more years :(

What strikes me funny, tweaking vet benefits should do more to harm troop morale than the peace movement :hi:

There's no end to the damage :mad:

And we need to use this to combat (pun intended!) the 'pugs whenever they say the Peace Movement hurts the troops' morale.