So Much For Obamacare Will Have No Effect On Our Military

This is a discussion on So Much For Obamacare Will Have No Effect On Our Military within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by nazshooter I'm as big a fan as you will find of military cutbacks but we need to do it by bringing the ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 60 of 60
Like Tree211Likes

Thread: So Much For Obamacare Will Have No Effect On Our Military

  1. #46
    Member Array mg27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by nazshooter View Post
    I'm as big a fan as you will find of military cutbacks but we need to do it by bringing the troops home and cutting the size of the force, not by cutting our support for those who remain or have already served.

    Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
    I just dont see it to be rational to cut funding for military when we live in a straight up dangerous world. Im no expert at all, but wouldnt it cause more US casualties by de-funding our military?

    Its like the police in my area, they are working their heads off and using west cars to take care of differnt sectors because of spending cuts. A domestic dispute which is usually priority was on standby after a shooting in a differnt sector. Thats just not good.. And its a danger to the police.. we need to stay armed to protect ourselves and to also if I see a cop being over powered Im helping him out no matter what. If the police dont have back up on time and I can help just by being another body thats what Im gonna do, its just the right thing to do.. We need to cut spending in so many areas but not on defense when we have unemployment so high, drugs abuse at a high rate with people not being able to afford the drugs they are addicted to thus leading them to do things they normally would not...and im rambling.. Im for bringing the troops home. My cuz father in law is a four star gen and my cuz husband has been over seas so many times, leaving her worrying and missing his being around for the kids.. Its time.
    chuckusaret likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Member Array nmbr5ml's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    La Vista, NE
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow247 View Post
    I am very aware what it takes to earn those benefits. If you look at my location, Hampton Roads, I am in one of the largest concentrations of military in the country. I speak to many service members, both retired and active, and many agree that we are wasting money on technology to fight an enemy that does not exist. We could handily "win" the "war" in Afghanistan with WW2 technology, but instead we choose to fly multi-million dollar planes to drop multi-thousand dollar bombs, against an enemy that is making explosives out of fertilizer and diesel fuel.
    A few dirtbags maneuver themselves into a good spot with an PKM, those JDAMS are an expensive, but very effective way to deal with them. They're a 500 lb bomb, that minimizes collateral damage effects.

    WW2 technology? Wait a minute, weren't you just whining about how we murder innocent people? Yes warfare in general would be downright easy if we did it the way it was done back then. We cannot. We can't DESTROY ENTIRE CITIES, eliminating our targets in the process. The way we do things today is inherently more risky against a technologically inferior enemy, but it minimizes collateral damage effects (e.g. the innocent civilians you were talking about).

    Yes there is a lot of waste, like the tanks, high-payload bombers, blue-water ships and subs that we not only don't use, but would have a surplus if they were used, and we're still building 'em, but by advocating the use of WW2 technology and decrying the "murder" of innocents in the same argument, you have exposed yourself as someone I regret having wasted so much time trying to educate already.

    Quit watching so much TV and crack a few books open. Others here will be happy to help you pick which ones. I'm out. Thanks for your support.
    mg27, Jeanlouise and tcox4freedom like this.

  4. #48
    Member Array Sarge65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida's Emerald Coast
    Posts
    137
    Before one comments on the BENEFITS my Brothers-In-Arms have EARNED, how about you schedule some time to see a recruiter, visit MEPS for the most pleasant of physical exams and interviews, and COMPLETE at least one term of enlistment and get a small taste of what it is those of us who have earned those benefits endured. Unless and until you walk a mile or twenty in our boots, you have no idea what it takes to earn those benefits. We earn those benefits with our blood, sweat and tears. I don't care how many current or former military people you talk to, all you hear are the words. So, in the words of Colonel Nathan Jessup, "I suggest you pick up a rifle and stand a post." I can say with certainty every current and former military person hear has stood a watch, whether walking a post in the rain, standing lookout on a pitching deck, or guarding aircraft in a snowstorm, we all endured hardships of some sort. Missing Christmas and birthdays was the easiest thing we had to endure.

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    KCMO
    Posts
    3,102
    An Army Sgt Major was buried earlier this year, served in Korea and Vietnam right in the middle of it all. He was at the Chosin Reservoir and Battle at la Drang (We Were Soldiers battle) - served in the Corps first if anyone is confused. Anyway, he confided in me that he felt bad about the retirement money he was receiving after doing 30 yrs. I was quick to assure him he earned every penny and the gov't was just getting around to pay him what he earned especially considering the ditch digger wages you get while risking life/limb for your country and what you're required to do.
    Jeanlouise and Hopyard like this.

  6. #50
    Member Array foxytwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow247 View Post
    Sorry to say, but the gravy train is coming to an end. While I am sympathetic to our service members, I have little sympathy for someone who buys what the government is selling. We simply can not continue the level of spending in ALL areas of government, this includes the military.
    Perhaps you would like a cut in your pay? Or is that only for the military people. shadow247 says the gravy train is about to end and he does not care. There are a lot of people that served and died in the military so he can say those things. I think he is on the gravy train.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,550
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow247 View Post
    I am not in a union, nor do I work in a government job. My wife is and does and it makes me sick to even take money from the government. I harbor no ill will towards service members as a group, but I do have a problem with those who claim to "defend my freedoms" while murdering innocents abroad. Lets call war what it is, murder plain and simple. Putting on a uniform does not change that Don't give me that BS line I've heard a million times "we'd be fighting them here if we weren't over there" and other such nonsense. The truth is WE created the current situation we find ourselves in militarily decades before, with our intervention in the middle east.

    I will stand by my statement that the current system can not continue. While I would like to see the promises/contracts honored for our military members, it simply is not feasible. The first programs to be cut should be welfare/entitlements, with cutting military benefits as a last resort. We should instead focus on the ridiculous amount of money wasted in the military on weapons to fight an enemy who is no better equipped than the Viet-Cong or North Koreans. Maybe if we weren't spending billions of dollars a year sending our young men and women to fight against an enemy we don't understand and can never defeat, we wouldn't have to cut their benefits.
    You turned this into a policy issue with this post and the attitudes of how you percieve service members IMO is disrespectful I. don't care what you feel about war and how terrible it is. You have better have some proof you have been in combat and have taken a life before you dare to pontificate to those who have served in uniform and have had to take a life. Until then you can leave your philisophical dribble elsewhere.

    ya know, though I don't like Sen Kerry he has a right to talk about war and the horrors of war. I might disagree but he is not sitting on the sidleines makeing judgements about folks. You can call it murder and by doing so you are calling all service members who have taken a life murderer's......Yes, war is violent and yes, many folks lose lives needlessly. That is political decisions.

    As far as debating cliches and the reasosn why we fight is totally not relevent to this discussion. Sir, the problem is your attitude. You have not addressed how we are riding a gravy train but instead tried to deflect the issue to the overall military budget and your obvious disdain for war (which I hate also). I was going to list a bunch of names of foks I know that have died in combat or wounded but by giving you their names to make a point and put a face on the issue would only dishonor them.
    tcox4freedom likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  8. #52
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,039
    It's certainly a political landmine! How about veterans that never saw combat or were in non-combat designations? Do we separate them, thematically, from those deployed into actual areas where the bullets flew? I mean, if a veterans was injured due to combat - it's a no brainer! But how is the guy who got his foot run over by a truck significantly different from the same story from a dockworker?

    Like I said, it's a landmine. There very much is a reasonable discussion to be had, but good luck trying to play devil's advocate!

    There's also a larger concern: the idea of present taxpayers being "on the hook" for previous agreements made by the government. What if the promised benefits were unaffordable? Then what? If they were unaffordable, then the contract has to be broken and re-negotiated. We run into this problem with unions or benefits packages all the time. It is different when it's the government, because we don't really consider bankruptcy to be an option - but everyone still wants to be paid what they think they're due, and they don't want to pay for benefits they don't think they will get.
    Mental illness incidents are used to threaten gun rights.
    The March of Dimes headed off the Universal Iron Lung coverage debate, just sayin'.
    Alternately, for those with a toolshed and ideas.


  9. #53
    Distinguished Member
    Array Jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Falling Waters, WV
    Posts
    1,948
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    It's certainly a political landmine! How about veterans that never saw combat or were in non-combat designations? Do we separate them, thematically, from those deployed into actual areas where the bullets flew? I mean, if a veterans was injured due to combat - it's a no brainer! But how is the guy who got his foot run over by a truck significantly different from the same story from a dockworker?

    Like I said, it's a landmine. There very much is a reasonable discussion to be had, but good luck trying to play devil's advocate!

    There's also a larger concern: the idea of present taxpayers being "on the hook" for previous agreements made by the government. What if the promised benefits were unaffordable? Then what? If they were unaffordable, then the contract has to be broken and re-negotiated. We run into this problem with unions or benefits packages all the time. It is different when it's the government, because we don't really consider bankruptcy to be an option - but everyone still wants to be paid what they think they're due, and they don't want to pay for benefits they don't think they will get.
    All military retirees get the same medical benefits no matter what. That's as it should be. Any military member gave their time and effort, moved repeatedly and served their country whether they saw combat or not. I've seen airplane mechanics get injured on the job, they are deserving of healthcare too.
    The benefits are nothing compared to what private companies give their retirees. We get half of the basic pay and healthcare...which we also help pay for.
    The priorities in this country are so wrong now days.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,550
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    It's certainly a political landmine! How about veterans that never saw combat or were in non-combat designations? Do we separate them, thematically, from those deployed into actual areas where the bullets flew? I mean, if a veterans was injured due to combat - it's a no brainer! But how is the guy who got his foot run over by a truck significantly different from the same story from a dockworker?

    Like I said, it's a landmine. There very much is a reasonable discussion to be had, but good luck trying to play devil's advocate!

    There's also a larger concern: the idea of present taxpayers being "on the hook" for previous agreements made by the government. What if the promised benefits were unaffordable? Then what? If they were unaffordable, then the contract has to be broken and re-negotiated. We run into this problem with unions or benefits packages all the time. It is different when it's the government, because we don't really consider bankruptcy to be an option - but everyone still wants to be paid what they think they're due, and they don't want to pay for benefits they don't think they will get.
    It is not a political landmine. If you are entitled to benefits whether you are retired after 20 years or retired because of combat wounds it does not matter. I don't care if one stayed behind a desk in DC for 20 years...they still get the same benefits. I know folks in combat that have never been wounded so it is not an issue.

    Just by virtue of being in the military (Army and Marines I will speak for since I knwo them best) you have a chance of injury just by virtue of your job. A finance person can be on jump status which increases chances of injury where there civilian counterpart might get a paper cut. A technician will have to go to the motor pool and has a risk of injury working on vehicles.
    Any soldier or Marine can go to the field, hump a ruck sack for miles, and basically have a harder life than their desk bound civilian counterparts.

    As far as promises....it is a bit different than comparing to unions (non government employee unions). The government has the ability to control how many people to use and what benefits they give them They can reduce benefits to newer recuits so while honoring benefits to folks already serving. Education benefits are an example of that as well as retirement pay. The government can easily reduce many "promises" to new recruits. They can eliminate or reduce education benefits, they can reduce health benefits, they can reduce or change how retirement pay is calculated. Those would affect only those foks joining and would be "the rules" while folks still in enjoy the benefits that were promised.

    An example is when I joined I knew I would not get 50 percent of my highest grade when I retired. I would get the average of my last three or highest salaries. When my wife joined she would only get 45 percent (?) of her pay for retirement.

    There is a way to reduce the cost in the furutre which allows folks to keep benefits now.

    EDIT: I have been an outspoken critic of military spending and benefits. One is the post 9/11 GI bill which is extremely juicy. In a nutshell you get houseing alloance (1300 bucks a month for me) and tution and books if going to college full time for 36 months. All you need to do is serve 36 months after 9/11. It is a great program but I think that benefits like that (not helathcare) should be based on how long you have served. Maybe reduce it to 2 semesters of college for 36 months of service and work it from their so that at 15 or 20 years servvice you get the full benefits.
    And this cost to the goevernment can be reduced right now by not offering it to new recruits. No promise, no promises broken. It has been happening for 75 years so it is nothing new.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  11. #55
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,039
    It is different to unions in fundamental ways. With a company, it's effectively the customer deciding if the promised benefits were too generous (unless the money was squirreled away in real time). Alternatively, current employees can quit if they think that too much of their paycheque is going to previous employees. With government benefits, though, who's on the hook for previous promises? Well, the current taxpayer (or the current employee). The employee can continue to vote with his feet, but the (current) taxpayer is then being asked to pay for benefits that were unrealistic in the first place. In the private union, unrealistic expectations meant that retirees would have to take haircuts on their contracts. With public sector defined-benefits, the taxpayer can always just be squeezed for more. "Re-negotiating" these contracts becomes incredibly difficult when everyone assumes that taxpayers can afford to pay for their benefits, no matter how hard the times are. The check on previous promises is no longer the customer's willingness to buy the service, to continue to fund the agreement. Where's the balancing force on the side of the taxpayer?

    I'm not specifically arguing military benefits, because I can only see the whole shebang as a theoretical discussion, and I strongly suspect that their health benefits are well below what I'd consider proper and the retirement benefits are opaque to me. Plus, my main contribution to the thread was the huge imbalance between the pharmaceutical policies of the VA vs. Medicare D.
    Mental illness incidents are used to threaten gun rights.
    The March of Dimes headed off the Universal Iron Lung coverage debate, just sayin'.
    Alternately, for those with a toolshed and ideas.


  12. #56
    Member Array bkenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    106
    I believe the one's that are on the gravy train is these politician's.They divide this country and take the spoils.
    mkphillips and Spirit51 like this.

  13. #57
    Senior Member Array sigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    517
    I am sad to see some of the comments on this thread about our military killing innocents abroad, etc. I had hoped this nation had moved well beyond the John Kerrys and Jane Fondas eagerly and falsely condemning our military of wanton atrocities. Guess I was wrong. It's bad enough that she is a "respected" Hollywood personality and he is a U.S. Senator probably soon to be Secretary of State. Now others are taking up their chants against those suffering and dying overseas.
    chuckusaret and msgt/ret like this.

  14. #58
    Distinguished Member
    Array Jeanlouise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Falling Waters, WV
    Posts
    1,948
    Quote Originally Posted by sigs View Post
    I am sad to see some of the comments on this thread about our military killing innocents abroad, etc. I had hoped this nation had moved well beyond the John Kerrys and Jane Fondas eagerly and falsely condemning our military of wanton atrocities. Guess I was wrong. It's bad enough that she is a "respected" Hollywood personality and he is a U.S. Senator probably soon to be Secretary of State. Now others are taking up their chants against those suffering and dying overseas.
    You mean little rich boy John Kerry who had a personal photographer follow him around in Viet Nam recording his "heroic" efforts for everyone to gaze in awe at? He's the biggest fraud since...the current Prez.
    As for Jane Fonda...I abhor that piece of human trash. She should be in prison for treason for what she did when she went to North Vietnam.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

  15. #59
    Senior Member Array Chesafreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckusaret View Post
    Remember back when Obama and his cronies were pushing for Obamacare approval they on numerous occasions stated that Obamacare would not alter the TRICARE system in anyway. So after January, at TRICARE retail outlets, the current $12 co-pay for brand name drugs on the military formulary will rise to $17. The $25 co-pay for non-formulary drugs will jump to $44. The co-pay for generic drugs at retail will stay at $5. Drugs will stay free at military pharmacies.
    For mail order, the current $9 co-pay for brand names on formulary will increase to $13. The $25 co-pay for brand names off formulary will jump to $43. Generic drugs will continue to be dispensed by mail at no cost.

    For fiscal 2014 and beyond, the plan directs that drug fees be raised annually by the same percentage as retiree cost-of-living adjustments. In years when a COLA increase applied to pharmacy fees would total less than a dollar, it will be delayed a year and combined with the next adjustment. So that drug fee increases, when executed, are always a dollar or more.

    Food for thought: In my case co pay has risen from $3.00 to $5.00 to $9.00 to $12 and now to $17.00 for a 30 day supply of drugs in the past four years . The future cost of living pay increases for retirees will not be realized by the retiree because the cost of drugs will increase by whatever the COLA percentage increase is. My wife has her on medical plan that is supplemented by Medicare and her co pay is $5.00 for a 30 day supply. Penalize the military they can't fight back. TRICARE Rx Fee Hike Planned for February
    It wasn't Obama who is responsible, it was our representatives.

    Conferees were persuaded to embrace the House plan, supported by advocates for military beneficiaries, over more aggressive fee hikes sought by the Obama administration.
    I'm a retired and partially disabled veteran, and I don't mind a reasonable copay hike. Everyone wants to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit but "don't touch my benefits". As long as this copay hike is the only hike then I'm okay with it. I will be watching to see if anything more extreme related to reducing benefits or charging higher copays is coming and I will write my representatives and voice my displeasure should that happen. This pharmacy copay hike I'm not going to fuss about.
    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

  16. #60
    Member Array Buzz64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Charlotte NC
    Posts
    52
    First, God bless every veteran in this country(on of off this forum). Every person that serves this country deserves the respect of every AMERICAN. As for gravy train, sorry you are so ignorant to what it takes to be a military member. I would love to see all these entitkement babies, politician, all these crybabies saying we ride the gravy train, or dont deserve our benefits take on boot camp. I am 49 years old and still serve my country. Yes I still do my push up, sit ups and run 2 miles every 6 months. Lets see some of the cry babies do this. I am not alone. There are several more of us "old farts" out ther living the life. Most politicians my age have already retired with FULL PAY. So I say to you, please, please stand in front of this gravy train, we will gladly run you down missing body parts and all.
    I say again, hats off to ALL past, present and future military, you guys are number 1 in my book. Hold your head high, you have done this country proud, let noone take that away from you.
    msgt/ret likes this.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

how does obama care affect military retirees
,
how does obamacare affect military
,

how does obamacare affect military retirees

,

how does obamacare affect tricare

,
how does obamacare affect tricare for life
,

how will obamacare affect military retirees

,
how will obamacare affect the military
,
military obamacare
,
obamacare effect on retired military
,

powered by mybb affect and effect

,
will military have to pay for obamacare
,
will obamacare affect tricare
Click on a term to search for related topics.