Military Retirees May Face Big Bump in Health Costs

[Jedburgh]

Military Retirees May Face Big Bump in Health Costs

A Pentagon task force proposed dramatic increases Thursday in the health insurance premiums paid by more than 3 million military retirees and their families, warning that medical costs are growing faster than the federal budget or the U.S. economy.

The 14-member panel unveiled a complicated fee structure that would more than double the annual cost of family coverage for 1.1 million military retirees under age 65, hiking their average fee from $460 to $1,100. While all those retirees would see fee increases, the exact amount for each would be tied to his or her pension, so those who retired at a higher rank would pay more.....

Here's the actual report: Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care - Final Report

The findings and recommendations on retiree benefits are on page "ES10" (20 of 204) of the pdf document.

One piece I'll talk to:

....estimates from a 2006 survey of military retirees suggest that even though 65 percent of retirees under the age of 65, and 58 percent of their dependents, are eligible for insurance from the retiree’s employer, only 40 percent elect private coverage for themselves, while 29 percent elect dependent coverage. This suggests that the majority (60 percent) of retirees who are eligible for private insurance through their employer are instead using TRICARE as a primary payer. For these individuals, DoD pays all medical costs, even though they are employed and have access to employer health benefits.....

Even if fees are doubled, my retiree health benefits would be cheaper than employer-provided benefits - and much more comprehensive. I'd be an idiot if I dropped a better, cheaper plan I have access to due to my military service in favor of a more expensive one with less coverage offered by my current employer.

In that context, I'm not going to bitch and whine if the annual fee is raised. The example of how employee health costs and pension plans have crippled our domestic automoble industry is a stark one. The point about "fairness to the American taxpayer" is one that should be well taken. Given the power of the veteran's lobbies and the potential for political suicide for any politician who may be seen as cutting veteran's benefits in the middle of a war, I'm not too concerned about a huge increase taking effect. But I can go along with a "modest hike" along the lines of what is suggested. I've never been one who supports an entitlement attitude.

However, a very different matter of far greater importance is the necessity to take adequate care of our wounded veterans who can't work, and need significant care for the remainder of their lives.

[Tom Odom]

Military Retirees May Face Big Bump in Health Costs

Here's the actual report: Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care - Final Report

The findings and recommendations on retiree benefits are on page "ES10" (20 of 204) of the pdf document.

One piece I'll talk to:

Even if fees are doubled, my retiree health benefits would be cheaper than employer-provided benefits - and much more comprehensive. I'd be an idiot if I dropped a better, cheaper plan I have access to due to my military service in favor of a more expensive one with less coverage offered by my current employer.

In that context, I'm not going to bitch and whine if the annual fee is raised. The example of how employee health costs and pension plans have crippled our domestic automoble industry is a stark one. The point about "fairness to the American taxpayer" is one that should be well taken. Given the power of the veteran's lobbies and the potential for political suicide for any politician who may be seen as cutting veteran's benefits in the middle of a war, I'm not too concerned about a huge increase taking effect. But I can go along with a "modest hike" along the lines of what is suggested. I've never been one who supports an entitlement attitude.

However, a very different matter of far greater importance is the necessity to take adequate care of our wounded veterans who can't work, and need significant care for the remainder of their lives.

They proposed this same thing a little over a year ago and the elections killed it. We will see this time how it fairs. I have my doubts like you, Ted. My personal take on this is when Congress aligns itself with an extant system on health care, pensions, and other matters, we will all be better off.

Best

Tom

[Uboat509]

My wife worked for TRICARE for about two years. She saw many retirees who had dificulty just paying the $115 every quarter. A massive rate increase like this one will just crush these people. I have a better idea. Let's kill a couple of F22s and fund TRICARE for a decade.

SFC W

[Stan]

Hey Ted,

Agree, let's take care of our soldiers in need.

I'll turn in my benefits if it means some will gain better and immediate care....now.

Military Retirees May Face Big Bump in Health Costs

Here's the actual report: Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care - Final Report

The findings and recommendations on retiree benefits are on page "ES10" (20 of 204) of the pdf document.

One piece I'll talk to:

Even if fees are doubled, my retiree health benefits would be cheaper than employer-provided benefits - and much more comprehensive. I'd be an idiot if I dropped a better, cheaper plan I have access to due to my military service in favor of a more expensive one with less coverage offered by my current employer.

In that context, I'm not going to bitch and whine if the annual fee is raised.
However, a very different matter of far greater importance is the necessity to take adequate care of our wounded veterans who can't work, and need significant care for the remainder of their lives.