# Military Retirees & Healthcare



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2015)

Seems like Lindsey Graham thinks military retirees aren't paying enough for their healthcare.  Nice.  

Sure, there are benefits to serving your country: tax free shopping, free healthcare on active duty, generous retirement, and sometimes active-duty housing benefits.  But military families give up a lot, too: limited autonomy in key life decisions, military salaries that are not comparable to analogous ones in the private sector, preventing you from retiring when you want, the possibility of being called back to active service after you've retired, and so forth.

But when my Dad joined up, free healthcare for life was what he was promised for himself and my Mom. And every few years, that promise gets whittled away.  They don't phase it in, either- everyone gets hit by the same rule.  The deal you signed up for when you enlisted gets unilaterally and retroactively rewritten..._AFTER_ you already upheld your side of it.

If it were a civilian contract, it would be illegal.

Now comes this:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ust-pay-more-for-health-care.html?ESRC=dod.nl

When times are tough, even certain GOP candidates think everyone must adjust their belts.  It's just that with  policies like this, the little guys get to tighten theirs, while the guys at the top have to let them out because they're getting too snug...

If only there were a way the government could raise its revenues to pay for all the things it committed to do for "We the people"...


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 12, 2015)

While the military seems to do a lot of pretty shady things in my book when it comes to treating its people right (the long hours with no overtime, etc.), I'm hard-pressed to get up in arms over healthcare issues for them. They have a tremendously sweet deal compared to most people (what other job gives that kind of healthcare after just a few years?). I'd rather see everyone have healthcare (including active duty members, vets, and civilians), honestly.

I don't think they deserve the healthcare because they served in the military. I do think they deserve it because they're people, though, and as a nation we can afford it (despite what many people think). But that's my view on it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2015)

Sweet deal?  Depends on how you look at it.

Part of the point with my anger is that a lot of people join the military for things like the healthcare, and- at any time after they've signed, including after their retired and possibly on a fixed income, that deal can be changed.

They don't deserve the healthcare because they were in the military- they deserve the healtcare because it was part of the contract they signed, and then performed fully on.

IOW, you go to bed one day getting a certain treatment free or deeply discounted, and you wake up the next day and it's $500/month more.  You paid for that with your time, lower pay during your peak earning years (meaning your nest-egg is smaller), and service, and it gets taken away without you having a say in it.

Imagine going to work for a company for 1 year, at a lower salary than you'd get somewhere else, but with one of the provisions being given an Aston Martin DB7 at the end of the contract.  You completely perform the contract, get the car, and drive it for a few weeks.  Then one day, you walk out and your Aston is gone, replaced by a Mini Cooper...that you have to pay for if you want to keep it.

And the court says that's OK.

Then, 2 years later, you're told that you're not laying enough for the Mini, so you'll have to pay more.

And the court says _that's_ OK.

It's worst for people covered by stop-loss orders (not allowed to retire) or those who get recalled from civilian life (because they have critical skills).  The latter usually only occurs to those in the reserves, but if your skills are mission critical, you can expect a call.  This covers a lot of people in the medical fields, for instance, or expertise in things like nuclear engines for ships.  Much of the military medical force has been allowed to go into the reserves- saving the military money- but with the understanding they can be called up if needed.  

That happened to my Dad: he got called up for Desert Storm while moving his practice from a rental into a building he and other MDs were erecting.  He had 3 days to close his practice & report for duty.  He had to fire his staff.  He was out of the country for half a year.  He was still bound to erect the building- especially since he wanted a practice to return to- and it nearly wiped out his entire savings.  He got paid at his rank's salary...but it was @1/5 what he was making in private practice.  He still hasn't recovered in the intervening years, and is nearing retirement.

How sweet a deal is that?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 12, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They don't deserve the healthcare because they were in the military- they deserve the healtcare because it was part of the contract they signed, and then performed fully on.



I kinda don't agree with this. I don't think people deserve things just because people are willing to promise it to them (but don't get me wrong -I do want them, and everyone else, to have healthcare).

If some CEO of a giant corporation gets a billion dollars when he steps down (or is forced out) because it was in his contract, I don't think he deserves it. Because I don't think anyone can really earn that kind of money. So I just can't intellectually line up on "because it was promised to them, and they held up there end, they deserve it."

Again, I do think they deserve healthcare. Because I think people deserve it.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, you go to bed one day getting a certain treatment free or deeply discounted, and you wake up the next day and it's $500/month more.  You paid for that with your time, lower pay during your peak earning years (meaning your nest-egg is smaller), and service, and it gets taken away without you having a say in it.



Yeah, that really, really blows. For everyone that it happens to, in every field, to civilian or vet.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> Imagine going to work for a company for 1 year, at a lower salary than you'd get somewhere else, but with one of the provisions being given an Aston Martin DB7 at the end of the contract.  You completely perform the contract, get the car, and drive it for a few weeks.  Then one day, you walk out and your Aston is gone, replaced by a Mini Cooper...that you have to pay for if you want to keep it.
> 
> And the court says that's OK.
> 
> ...



I'd feel ripped off. Luckily, as an outside observer, I'm not going to let those feelings guide my thoughts.

Plus, healthcare is an entirely different ballgame than a fancy car (I'm not a car guy anyway, so I couldn't even pick your Aston Martin out of a lineup, much less tell you why it's so good).


Dannyalcatraz said:


> It's worst for people covered by stop-loss orders (not allowed to retire) or those who get recalled from civilian life (because they have critical skills).  The latter usually only occurs to those in the reserves, but if your skills are mission critical, you can expect a call.  This covers a lot of people in the medical fields, for instance, or expertise in things like nuclear engines for ships.  Much of the military medical force has been allowed to go into the reserves- saving the military money- but with the understanding they can be called up if needed.



A policy I don't agree with. You should be able to quit. Really. In an all volunteer army, that should be the way it should work.

I'm kinda curious, at this point, if you'd rather talk about idealistic shoulds, or pragmatic shoulds. Like, stuff that we should be doing (and could feasibly afford, etc.) but that would never pass into law, or would you rather talk about stuff that could theoretically come to pass (taking into account current politics, etc.). Both are totally fine with me.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> That happened to my Dad: he got called up for Desert Storm while moving his practice from a rental into a building he and other MDs were erecting.  He had 3 days to close his practice & report for duty.  He had to fire his staff.  He was out of the country for half a year.  He was still bound to erect the building- especially since he wanted a practice to return to- and it nearly wiped out his entire savings.  He got paid at his rank's salary...but it was @1/5 what he was making in private practice.  He still hasn't recovered in the intervening years, and is nearing retirement.
> 
> How sweet a deal is that?



It's crap. And it shouldn't happen, ideally (as in, I think that the government shouldn't be able to do it). He got boned. That doesn't change my view that healthcare should be for everyone, and that I can't quite sympathize more with a group of people that (for the majority) work a few years to get what should be a basic human right. I sympathize with everyone who doesn't have healthcare. Vets get no special treatment from me when it comes to basic rights like that.

But that last part leads us back to me knowing if you want to talk about ideals or pragmatic stuff.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 13, 2015)

Interesting. I wonder if this is going to affect TriCare payouts to service providers. Being one of those providers, I can tell you that they payout better than most, if not all other insurance companies (at least in my experience). It has a higher payout, which is something that adds to how sustainable the TriCare will be in the future. They also have more requirements, thought not actually higher standards, than other insurance companies. It may require that payouts be decreased in order to avoid increasing the amount military members put into their health coverage, and there are plenty of lobbyist working to prevent that. 

It's interesting that the republican party is generally seen as the pro-military party, but the truth seems to be that they are pro-military as long as it serves the interests of their corporate backers. Well, you get what you vote for, I guess.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 13, 2015)

JamesonCourage said:


> I kinda don't agree with this. I don't think people deserve things just because people are willing to promise it to them (but don't get me wrong -I do want them, and everyone else, to have healthcare).




Forgot about health care for a second, are you saying if you enter a contract to say purchase a car for $499 for 5 years, and at the end of the contract you own the car, but its OK, if the company you sign the contract with negates the deal, and after paying all that money, you don't get to own the car, because you don't deserve it? (That's essentially what you're saying.)

Its got nothing to do with deserve, it simply has to do with honoring the terms of a contract, which now the government is in breach of that contract. How is that OK?


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 13, 2015)

I think free unlimited lifetime healthcare (including psychological care) should be had by people who served in combat. If you're going to put your life on the line, that's the least owed to you especially in case something goes wrong. All disabled veterans unable to work should have guaranteed housing, as well, especially if they can still serve in an advisory capacity. A certain level of that care should be available to all serving and retired military. I don't think you should be automatically grandfathering in everyone as 'the deal' changes if that lessens the benefits - if you entered while a certain level of care was being offered, that's what you should be receive. I'm very much in favor of reducing, say, the number of standing nuclear missiles or not building the absolute latest and greatest whatfor to fund this.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 13, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Forgot about health care for a second, are you saying if you enter a contract to say purchase a car for $499 for 5 years, and at the end of the contract you own the car, but its OK, if the company you sign the contract with negates the deal, and after paying all that money, you don't get to own the car, because you don't deserve it? (That's essentially what you're saying.)



No, it's not what I'm saying. I will converse civilly with you on this when you can do so. After this post, you get nothing from me unless you stop telling me what I'm saying.


gamerprinter said:


> Its got nothing to do with deserve



That's literally the word Danny used (that I replied to). Twice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2015)

> I kinda don't agree with this. I don't think people deserve things just because people are willing to promise it to them (but don't get me wrong -I do want them, and everyone else, to have healthcare).




It isn't a mere promise, it is a contract that has been fully performed by one side.  Those are 2 very different things.

CEO salary is a bit of a different issue.  The salaries we see in the states are an economic drag on those companies that we simply don't see anywhere else in the world.  Those are contracts that should not be made*, IMHO, but once the contracts are made and performed on, they should be honored _unless voided or altered by the courts in some way._



> I'd feel ripped off. Luckily, as an outside observer, I'm not going to let those feelings guide my thoughts.
> 
> Plus, healthcare is an entirely different ballgame than a fancy car.




The core issue is identical: honoring the bargained-for reward of completing a legally binding contract.



> I'm kinda curious, at this point, if you'd rather talk about idealistic shoulds, or pragmatic shoulds.




Willing to discuss both.



> That doesn't change my view that healthcare should be for everyone, and that I can't quite sympathize more with a group of people that (for the majority) work a few years to get what should be a basic human right. I sympathize with everyone who doesn't have healthcare. Vets get no special treatment from me when it comes to basic rights like that.




This isn't a case of arguing whether or not affordable healthcare should be available for everyone.  It should.

The issue here is that a group that singed contracts that included affordable healthcare are having it incrementally and retroactively excised from the contracts they signed.

Keeping the example entirely within the healthcare world, imagine the USA offered a single payer universal health care system (SPUHCS) in which different levels of care were free for life, depending on how you chose to be taxed while you were working.  Weighing your options, you opted for the medium level, which will cost you @15% more of your salary.  You get taxed at that rate and enjoy your coverage.  Eventually, you retire.

A few years later, you are told that, at your SPUHCS level, your covered services will not be free, but will have a co-pay.

A few years later, you're told the co-pay will now be accompanied by a $700 annual fee.  Which becomes $1500, then $3000 over the next few years.

Because that is what is happening.





* That they are says more about the way CEOs are chosen and compensated in the USA vs everywhere else than the underlying nature of contract law in general.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2015)

JamesonCourage said:


> That's literally the word Danny used (that I replied to). Twice.




Let me clarify: they do not "deserve" the healthcare in an abstract sense.  They "deserve" it because they have EARNED it as part of the contract that they served under.  That is a legal standard; that's how it would be described in an old court of equity or a modern contracts case.  It is part of the compensation clause of a contract.  It's a fundamental part of the operations of contract law.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 13, 2015)

JamesonCourage said:


> No, it's not what I'm saying. I will converse civilly with you on this when you can do so. After this post, you get nothing from me unless you stop telling me what I'm saying.




I'm not being uncivil, I simply reframed your exact words - here's those exact words again, especially the bolded part...



JamesonCourage said:


> I kinda don't agree with this. *I don't think people deserve things just because people are willing to promise it to them* (but don't get me wrong -I do want them, and everyone else, to have healthcare).




Again, it wasn't a promise, it was specific conditions of a contract. For providing an X year commitment at risk of one's life by joining the military, the government provides Y services, and among those Y services is health care. I signed the same contract when I was in the military, so it wasn't some idle promise it was an agreement in a contract. How do people who fulfill their side of a contract, not deserve what was agreed upon.

If anyone signs a legal contract, as long as the signer is not in breach themselves to the terms of the contract, there is an expectation, that the other member of the agreement will fulfill the terms. Not doing so is in breach of a contract. Whether anyone deserves anything or not is meaningless, this is contract law we're discussing and nothing else.

Being a former member of the military, I don't think I "deserve" any rights that non-military do not deserve. That said, having fulfilled my side of a contract, I fully expect the terms in the agreement to be fulfilled. Its not a right that is being denied, rather it is the terms of a contract that is being denied.

Again, I'm not being uncivil, I am simply trying to understand what you're saying - and I don't understand, because you're making no sense at all, and now your being defensive about it.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 13, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Let me clarify: they do not "deserve" the healthcare in an abstract sense.  They "deserve" it because they have EARNED it as part of the contract that they served under.  That is a legal standard; that's how it would be described in an old court of equity or a modern contracts case.  It is part of the compensation clause of a contract.  It's a fundamental part of the operations of contract law.




You're touching on a fundamental reason I support public sector unions and collective bargaining. The "people", as in the government, can be a terrible employer because compensation, even long after the service has been rendered, ends up being a political football.


----------



## Joker (Jul 13, 2015)

What's the rationale for allowing military contracts to be unilaterally altered?  I mean, is there a national security reason for it?

It just seems, the way you describe it, that the government is seriously shafting the people that worked for them.


----------



## Janx (Jul 13, 2015)

Joker said:


> What's the rationale for allowing military contracts to be unilaterally altered?  I mean, is there a national security reason for it?
> 
> It just seems, the way you describe it, that the government is seriously shafting the people that worked for them.




It certainly seems to be a breach in contract, unless the contract says "the government can change the terms"

I would say that the argument that "everyone should have free healthcare but they don't so it doesn't matter if soldiers had their removed" is not really pertinent to the discussion.  If you are not a soldier and want free healthcare, that's for you to negotiate a contract with somebody for.  Soldiers had a contract, it said we'll pay you in healthcare.

Given that this is also happening in a time where we sent these people to war, and wouldn't let many of them quit, forcing them for multiple tours past their contract, that's pretty shady dealings.

As it also seems that somehow, these soldiers do not have a legal right to contest the breach of contract, that means that folks who fight for our rights and freedoms do not get to enjoy the same benefits.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 13, 2015)

Janx said:


> As it also seems that somehow, these soldiers do not have a legal right to contest the breach of contract, that means that folks who fight for our rights and freedoms do not get to enjoy the same benefits.




Failing to properly care for those who fought for the nation is a tradition stemming back... I think since the formation of the nation.Perhaps it'll be a major topic in the next election cycle?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2015)

Joker said:


> What's the rationale for allowing military contracts to be unilaterally altered?  I mean, is there a national security reason for it?



Nope- it's all about the money.  The military's personnel costs are- like in most businesses and institutions- one of their biggest categories.

The problem is that we have a budgetary issue recognized by all, being tied up in a political battle between the "tax & spend "left vs the "cut taxes and spend" right, with the right currently controlling the money flow. They don't want to cut defense spending on equipment- even equipment that the military says it does not need- because THAT spending creates jobs in manufacturing and infrastructure.  Cutting personnel costs- either by cutting benefits or by firings and reducing recruitment efforts- has more political will behind it.  It's easier to sell, even if the number of jobs lost is the greater, because it is distributed across all constituencies.  Those manufacturing/infrastructure jobs are all concentrated in small regions.

It's the difference between firing 40k soldiers from all over the US or altering health care benefits to millions distributed likewise, and the closing of a town's tank factory, costing that community 3000 jobs in one stroke of the pen.

Can you guess which one has better optics for a politician?



> It just seems, the way you describe it, that the government is seriously shafting the people that worked for them.



And


> As it also seems that somehow, these soldiers do not have a legal right to contest the breach of contract, that means that folks who fight for our rights and freedoms do not get to enjoy the same benefits.




It is exactly the case.  And it is extremely difficult- procedurally and practically- to sue the Federal (or State) government.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 14, 2015)

Here is something that puts  twist in it ll:

While the vets, who did more then work - they put their lives on the line -  healthcare is diminished or the price increased, those who make the changes in Washington get more pay AND more healthcare benefits while doing nothing more the then sit around griping and fighting with words and acting like a dysfunctional family. Acting like a bunch of spoiled brats, even.

How is that even right?


----------



## miniaturehoarder (Jul 14, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> Here is something that puts  twist in it ll:
> 
> While the vets, who did more then work - they put their lives on the line -  healthcare is diminished or the price increased, those who make the changes in Washington get more pay AND more healthcare benefits while doing nothing more the then sit around griping and fighting with words and acting like a dysfunctional family. Acting like a bunch of spoiled brats, even.
> 
> How is that even right?



Who says it's right? It comes down to "What are you, _The Individual_, going to do about it?" Politicians get away with it because people are apathetic and there are not enough vigilantes.

Those who serve chose to believe the promises of politicians, those who write and protect themselves from moral culpability with the law.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2015)

Like I said, it is difficult to sue the government.  The principle of sovereign immunity applies: basically, the government has to consent to being sued.

There are exceptions, but it is rare enough that suing the government has essentially become a litigation specialty in and of itself.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 14, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> How is that even right?




"Right? Wrong?  I'm the one with the elected office!"

It often seems that right action is something government achieves merely on statistical grounds - the Law of Large Numbers applies - rather than by any intent.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Like I said, it is difficult to sue the government.  The principle of sovereign immunity applies: basically, the government has to consent to being sued.




So, how hard is it to instead sue the individual legislators?  One needs special procedures (impeachment) to bring the President to court - does that hold for members of Congress as well?


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 14, 2015)

Umbran said:


> So, how hard is it to instead sue the individual legislators?  One needs special procedures (impeachment) to bring the President to court - does that hold for members of Congress as well?




Now this is a good question!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 14, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> Now this is a good question!




I am pretty sure it doesn't work.  If individual legislators could be personally held accountable for governance, the chilling effect would mean we'd not have any government.

It doesn't mean I don't *want* to hold them accountable for some of the willful stupidity and nigh-treasonous harm that will come from their greedy choices, but the repercussions would be almost as bad.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 14, 2015)

Once again, I must back out of a line of thought. I REALLY do not want to get ban-hammered for expressing an impassioned opinion!

Having said that,

I now realize I just expressed my opinion in a way. If one has a threat of civil liability, A legislator would be more diligent to be a better legislator, In theory any way. 

I know when it became law to Have to have insurance, it was intended to make people more careful drivers. Instead I ran into the attitude of "Oh well, I have insurance".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2015)

Umbran said:


> So, how hard is it to instead sue the individual legislators?  One needs special procedures (impeachment) to bring the President to court - does that hold for members of Congress as well?



If it is a private citizen suing in civil court for something they did in their official capacity, then it falls under sovereign immunity.  But if it is a criminal case for abuse of power, etc., they're much easier to target.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 15, 2015)

Sigh ... I was ignoring political threads but the title caught my eye and this hits too close to home not to comment.

 [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] has the right of it for the most part ... the sticking point being that the majority of military benefits are not expressly in the contract. Pull up a DD Form 4 and check the language -- the contract only states that benefits will be provided "according to law and regulation."

Regulations are set by DoD and service and can be changed at whim, laws adjusted according to the desires of the legislature -- and none of those changes violate the contract, as there is no baseline condition in the contract to compare to. Our military and civilian leaders and legislators generally try to do the right thing and "grandfather" people in when policies change (the multiple retirement systems is a good example) but that doesn't always happen and hasn't in the case of military and retiree health care.  Yeah, supposedly we were promised free health care -- point to where that promise was made? We can't, unfortunately.

Personally I'd be a huge fan of having more explicit service contracts that spell out much more exactly what our benefits are at the point of entry into service so they'd (in theory) be more enforceable in the event of change, but I don't see that ever happening -- Congress likes the flexibility of dictating how the military is to be treated (even when they want to treat us well). And in any event it's not like servicemembers can generally sue the government for service-incurred faults or changes (Feres Doctrine, writ large, though IANAL).

Whether military retirees and service members deserve it is left as an exercise to the reader.  At 22 years of active service and counting, I'm too biased to offer a balanced opinion other than to pose a question: what's the value of protection to the protected, when the protector is willing to grant the protected a writ of unlimited liability, to be cashed at will, in return for some future (and often, unrealized) benefit?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

> ...the sticking point being that the majority of military benefits are not expressly in the contract.




That IS one of the major reasons why challenging this in court would be difficult.  Any competent trial attorney could find out what benefits were offered at the time of signing, but since the contracts don't explicitly enumerate those benefits- and may not even reference the policies obliquely- meeting the Court's standards of proof would be an uphill battle.

Most might not even want to try.  Only the real attack dogs might want to go after the Feds.

Now imagine trying to find a Rottweiler who is up to the challenge when you're on a fixed income, or have just entered the civilian workforce after several years on a military salary, and you're fighting for s few thousand bucks of healthcare benefits.

Odds are good they won't touch that case unless they can build a class-action suit out of it, because otherwise,  the potential payout amounts to @ half a day of their billable hours.


----------



## Joker (Jul 15, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nope- it's all about the money.  The military's personnel costs are- like in most businesses and institutions- one of their biggest categories.




Yeah, I understand it's about money.  They would rather leave 300 new Abrahms tanks to rust in the desert than to do the right thing.  But what I don't understand is how it can be legal.  I get that you can be called up after service in times of need but having the terms of your contract changed seems Darth Vadian. 

For a country that prides itself on supporting its troops, I hear a lot of horror stories where those same troops are getting the rawest possible deal.  i.e. the VA not working properly, vets from American territories not getting the same benefits as vets from the 50 states, what happened to your father.

I suppose it's not entirely the politicians fault.  If they choose to cut funding for nuclear sites that are obsolete or stop ordering equipment the military doesn't need, they'll likely get hammered by their constituents in the next election.  Some of the blame has to fall on the populace for not willing to make a sacrifice for the people that are sworn to protect them.

I hope I'm making a little sense.  I'm a bit drunk.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 15, 2015)

Joker said:


> Yeah, I understand it's about money.  They would rather leave 300 new Abrahms tanks to rust in the desert than to do the right thing.  But what I don't understand is how it can be legal.  I get that you can be called up after service in times of need but having the terms of your contract changed seems Darth Vadian.




Sadly this is hardly new in the annals of military history and this sort of thing goes back before the Romans. More recently, consider Kipling:

_Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll._

Even the US, which at least at the moment appears to hold its military and its veterans in relatively high regard, this treatment averages out to be poor.  Back to the founding of the Republic, when the Continental Army was demobilized without pay, to post Civil War when veterans protested to gain pensions, to the Bonus Army of the '30s when even the Army was turned on its own, the memories of our citizens tend to be short.

There are risks in such treatment, and the risks are subtle yet extreme -- and it is one thing to take that risk with short term volunteers, and another yet to do it with professional soldiers. High regard is relatively recent.  For more on the implications, I strongly recommend Jerry Pournelle's essay Mercenaries and Military Virtue. He wrote during a time in the not-to-distant past when the US military was not held in high esteem, and what the risks of those misunderstandings might mean if other lessons of history are applied.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 15, 2015)

Joker said:


> Yeah, I understand it's about money.  They would rather leave 300 new Abrahms tanks to rust in the desert than to do the right thing.  But what I don't understand is how it can be legal.  I get that you can be called up after service in times of need but having the terms of your contract changed seems Darth Vadian.




I always felt I lucked out. I was in the US Army from 1983 -1987, however my Individual Ready Reserve status (IRR) which is the time period after my active duty status that I could be called back to war, ended the same day as the start of the Persian Gulf War. So technically, I could have been called back to serve, but wasn't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

The trick is- beyond the issues of sovereign immunity confounding subsequent legal remedy- is that promises are made to entice you to join, but the contract you sign does not in any way reference the promises.  There isn't any clause in your enlistment contract saying something like "See USC §1234.5(a) regarding your healthcare."


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 15, 2015)

opinion:
good news is it is better now then for Vietnam Vets

Bad news is We still get the shaft. My Veteran status meant nothing when trying to get a job - if anything it brought scorn.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 15, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> opinion:
> good news is it is better now then for Vietnam Vets
> 
> Bad news is We still get the shaft. My Veteran status meant nothing when trying to get a job - if anything it brought scorn.




I've never had a negative experience because of the fact I served. Of course, I'd only worked for various employers for the first 7 years after I got out of the Army, mostly being a self-employed business owner after that (so for 20+ years I had no actual employer, aside from myself).


----------



## miniaturehoarder (Jul 17, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> Bad news is We still get the shaft. My Veteran status meant nothing when trying to get a job - if anything it brought scorn.



That does sound like a potential issue in some fields.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 17, 2015)

"I have altered the contract. Pray that I do not alter it further." - Senator Graham's role model?

Seriously, what is some peoples problem with Americans having decent medical care? And why do they never go after the actually expensive part of publically funded healthcare - Medicare for the over 65s? And is Senator Graham going to decline his own healthcare? Or is this another attempt to screw the poor?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> And why do they never go after the actually expensive part of publically funded healthcare - Medicare for the over 65s?




Two reasons:

1) "People over 65" is a huge voting block.  Cheesing them off as a group is a Bad Move.  Oh, and having grannies keel over for lack of health care is extremely mediapathic 
2) My understanding (and someone correct me if I am wrong) is that... Medicare actually kinda works.  Expensive, yes, but the alternatives would actually cost more.  It is a "ain't broke don't fix it" thing, I think.


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 17, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> opinion:
> good news is it is better now then for Vietnam Vets
> 
> Bad news is We still get the shaft. My Veteran status meant nothing when trying to get a job - if anything it brought scorn.




I think it depends on the person hiring and the experience they have had with veterans.

When I retired, I decided to apply for part time at Barnes and Noble, to keep myself solvent.  (I spent 26 years in as an MP/SF in the Air Force)

When hired, the manager gave me credit for "2 years" of managerial experience (which technically is laughable but she meant well, and it was the most the system would let her do, I appreciated the thought) and brought me in about a $1.50 higher per hour than MANY of the people who had been there a year or two.  Now after three years I am a manager. (I thought I retired!  Sheesh people, let me relax!)

So it depends on the company and the hiring official.  I have heard rumors and stories from other veterans of situations such as you speak, which makes me discouraged for our standing in society.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 17, 2015)

JamesonCourage said:


> While the military seems to do a lot of pretty shady things in my book when it comes to treating its people right (the long hours with no overtime, etc.)...




For the most part, it's not the military itself that doesn't treat its people right, it's the politicians that fund and run the military that do this.



JamesonCourage said:


> ...I'm hard-pressed to get up in arms over healthcare issues for them. They have a tremendously sweet deal compared to most people (what other job gives that kind of healthcare after just a few years?).




You may have a fundamental misunderstanding about this.  Nobody gets free healthcare for life after just a few years.  If one does not serve a full 20 years and retire honorably, one does not get the health care that Danny and Senator Graham are talking about.  Serving 19 years and 364 days is the same as serving only 2 or 4 years as far as this benefit is concerned.  Even a medical discharge doesn't grant free health care for life.  One gets a percentage rating based on their level of disability and receives that percentage of base pay (split between VA payments and DFAS payments), and can receive free health care for their service related health issues only.  

And, in actuality, it's not even a percentage of your straight base pay anymore.  It used to be a percentage of your base pay at retirement or discharge, now it's a percentage of the average of your final 36 months of service.  One more of those little ways they've eroded the benefits...

If you serve 2, 4, 6, 8 or more years, but short of a full 20, all you receive is temporary health insurance coverage under Tri-Care (currently managed by Humana), that you do not need to pay a premium for, but do pay co-pays.  Typically, this lasts 180 days.  Afterwards, you can sign up for a temporary premium based service for 18-36 months.  I don't know what the premiums are, but I believe they are lower than comparable civilian health insurance.  However, after this expires you are on your own (hopefully you'll be working by then and have your own insurance).

As to the VA, they only cover service related health issues.  This means you often need to prove that an issue stems from your service before you receive coverage for it - which can be a very complicated, lengthy and frustrating process, and is most definitely not a sure thing.

Not to mention that there is a lot of distrust among military members concerning the VA.  Yes, it was big news a while ago.  Yes, they made changes and promised to "fix" the system.  However, the VA still has very serious problems.  These problems will take years to fix - if they ever truly do.

Full health care is only provided after retiring honorably with at least 20 years of service.  This obligation is in writing.  It's an obligation that the US Government agreed to - and that which Senator Graham wants to "amend"...

I retired with 21 years of service.

Now, before anyone says that even after 20 years, this government provided health care far exceeds that which most civilians have access to and is therefore a really good deal, remember this:


Many job specialties in the military earn far less than what they would earn in the civilian market.  For instance, I was an Aircraft Maintenance/Avionics Craftsman (the equivalent of a dual-qualified FCC Licensed Technician and Airframe/Powerplant Mechanic in the civilian world), and in my last few years I was what's called a Flightline Expediter (the equivalent of a mid-level civilian Airfield Manager).  As a low ranking SSgt (equivalent to a mid-level civilian technician/low level supervisor), I made about $35,000 dollar a year in the military (including allowances and before taxes), and would probably have made mid-$50,000 dollar range as a civilian.  As a TSgt and Flightline Expediter just before I retired, I made about $45,000 a year (again, with allowances and before taxes), and would have made closer to $75,000 as a civilian.
Military duty is, on average, far more strenuous and hazardous than comparable civilian work - before even considering the danger of enemy actions.  As a civilian, OSHA standards don't take a back-seat to operational necessities.  For instance, most civilians don't have to temporarily perform their job on a former Soviet military base that's more toxic waste dump (and possibly radioactive) than it is what we would call a "base" (I did).  As a civilian, you don't typically perform your job in austere or hazardous conditions - or at least not without getting premium pay for doing so (the extra $150 dollars a month for a hazardous duty location, even taking into consideration tax-free status while in a combat zone, are far from what could be considered "premium pay"...).  So, all in all, 20 years in the military puts far more physical strain on the body and far more exposure to potentially life altering hazards than the same 20 years in a civilian job.  As Indiana Jones said, "It's not the years...it's the mileage."
Lastly, even though all Americans have a target on their back to a certain extent, it's nothing compared to those in the military - and it's not just while in uniform or on active duty.  The recent hack on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which garnered every SF86 application going back to the early 2000's, has put every military member - former and active - in the crosshairs.  Honestly, I hope it was China that did the hack, since that would mean that the information is relatively safe.  God forbid if it was non-State sponsored hackers, and they decide to sell that data to Al-Qaeda or ISIS.  They'd have access not just to the addresses of former and active military members, but also their family and friends, social security numbers, and significant biographical information.  All Americans have plenty to worry about, but this is a legitimate, explicit threat that most civilians don't have to worry about - and this isn't the only such worry of this sort.


Anyways, as a retiree (not just separated), if I was living in proximity to a military base I could receive all of my health care and prescriptions absolutely free from the base hospital.  Of course though, access to certain types of health care, procedures, and certain medications may not be available (for instance, one might be able to get Generic Synthroid, but not non-Generic Synthroid - which might be necessary for some patients - and there isn't much call for a dedicated oncology department or geriatric specialists for active duty military).  Since I don't live near a base, I rely on my Tri-Care coverage.  Tri-care is a good deal, but it's not entirely free.  I do not pay a premium, however I do have to pay co-pays.

Back to the VA for a moment...

I became sick with an autoimmune disease called Graves Disease just as I was retiring.  It occurred after my retirement ceremony but before my official retirement date.  Since I was still on active duty when I got sick, I was fully covered - at the time.  And it's technically a service related health issue.  However, I do not trust the VA one bit, and would rather see a civilian doctor while paying the co-pays for visits and medication, than ever deal with the VA.

I currently live in West Palm Beach, Florida.  I do not live near one of the notorious VA facilities like the one in Arizona that sparked the most recent "drive" to reform the VA.  However, even the VA here in WPB has it's issues.  Here, it was a scandal involving pharmacy workers stealing and selling pain medications - medications intended for veterans.

BTW, I purposely characterized this as merely the most recent drive to reform the VA.  There have been numerous past initiatives to reform the VA, though it never seems to ever get completely done, and the motivation seems to die off as quickly as the media coverage.

Technically, I could file for disability.  With the current state of my health as concerns this, it would likely be a 0% rating.  0% still means "officially disabled" and would qualify me for any considerations that categorization provides (hiring preferences, etc.), but no money.  Frankly, the bureaucracy I would have to wade through in order to do this simply isn't worth it to me.  The process is prohibitive; most likely due simply to the inefficiency of government, but likely also accepted by policy makers as a beneficial feature.


Anyways, in short, the military is anything but a path for guaranteed wealth and security.  The benefits we receive, in most cases, only break even when compared to the sacrifices that are made.

Not to mention that the government, as the representative of the people, has made obligations to those that volunteer for the defense of this country.  When they don't live up to their obligations, when they erode and sometimes outright renege on those obligations, then they - and by extension, the American People - have dishonored themselves and those which guaranteed their continued security.

And there's simply no excuse for it...




JamesonCourage said:


> I'd rather see everyone have healthcare (including active duty members, vets, and civilians), honestly. ...and despite what many people think...as a nation we can afford it...




I agree completely.



JamesonCourage said:


> I don't think they deserve the healthcare because they served in the military.




You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  I however, think that opinion is absolutely wrong - for the reasons listed above.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 17, 2015)

The main scoffer to my veteran status was the University of Missouri - Columbia, then there were other companies that needed electronics repair expedience, which I had 4 + years, dismissing any value to my qualifications.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 17, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Failing to properly care for those who fought for the nation is a tradition stemming back...I think since the formation of the nation.




All too true.



Umbran said:


> Perhaps it'll be a major topic in the next election cycle?




I doubt it will be much of a topic for the election.  Or if it is, it will take a form similar to Senator Graham calling for spending less money on veterans.  The problem is that the percentage of Americans with military service is getting lower and lower each year.  Right now it's a little over 7%, but with WWII vets (only about 850,000 left of 16 million), Korea vets, and Vietnam vets dying, that number will continue to decrease - and quite significantly - over the next 10 to 20 years.

And most telling, those in Congress with military experience has steadily declined from about 70% in the early 80's, to only 18% today.  Not to mention that we just had the only two presidents since Truman to not have any military experience, and both in the last 20 years.

Most likely, the next president won't have military experience either.  The only candidates with military experience are Rick Perry (R), Jim Webb (D) - and ironically - Senator Graham (R), who served as a military lawyer.  (No insult to lawyers intended, Danny.)

The only one with actual combat experience is Jim Webb (Vietnam).

My frank opinion is that most Americans not only haven't served, but don't know - and don't want to know - anything about those in the military.  They'd rather just not be bothered about it.

Truth of the matter is, if the government and American people were fulfilling their obligations as they should, there'd be no need for all of these military charities that exist.  Charities that are predominantly founded by and run by former military or family members.

We tend to take care of our own...there's just less and less of us to do so, and fewer in positions where they can make a difference.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 17, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> The main scoffer to my veteran status was the University of Missouri - Columbia, then there were other companies that needed electronics repair expedience, which I had 4 + years, dismissing any value to my qualifications.




I hear that. My brother-in-law's experience as a medic hasn't given him a lot of credit with any civilian health care organizations or education, not even with EMT companies in his area. I was a little surprised at how much of this goes on considering the recruiting pitches my friends were given when they went into the USAF. Two of them now teach mathematics after going to college on their educational benefits and the third now works at the local VA handling accounts - though at least his service experience with medical equipment did at least lead to him working for a medical equipment manufacturing firm for a while.
And my brother-in-law? He's now pursuing education in healthcare admin and works at his local VA (or will be when his current call-up as a reservist is over).


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 17, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> "I have altered the contract. Pray that I do not alter it further." - Senator Graham's role model?



It's more like you should feel lucky he didn't alter it more.



> Seriously, what is some peoples problem with Americans having decent medical care?



Some people feel that you should work for your own healthcare or any other benefit that the government may want to offer you. They feel that others are taking from their pocket unfairly. Of course, those same people use the same programs and benefits and feel that they should get those benefits while others get screwed. Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter, made a film that shows how people in the south feel about various things. It's interesting. If you can, look it up on YouTube. They should have some clips there.



> And why do they never go after the actually expensive part of publically funded healthcare - Medicare for the over 65s?



First, the group votes. Politicians are terrified of groups that vote. Second, that isn't he part that costs the most. The real problem is the cost of healthcare. It's not cheap. Hell, some things are overpriced. I'm sure you've heard people joke about paying $20.00 for a Tylenol at a hospital. It's true. I wok with families that have TriCare coverage. I'll tell you this, they pay well. Really well. In fact, out of all the insurance companies I've had to deal with, they pay me the best. They pay about 50% more than what other insurance companies pay for the services I provide. So, if they really wanted to reduce expenses, they would be trying to figure out how to reduce the cost of services. But that isn't going to happen. 



> And is Senator Graham going to decline his own healthcare?



Not a chance. 







> Or is this another attempt to screw the poor?



Yup.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 17, 2015)

> Some people feel that you should work for your own healthcare or any other benefit that the government may want to offer you. They feel that others are taking from their pocket unfairly. Of course, those same people use the same programs and benefits and feel that they should get those benefits while others get screwed.




My Dad has told me that he has more than one patient who has complained about the ACA.

...who only have insurance because the ACA did away with InsCos denying coverage to people with "per-existing conditions".


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2015)

El Mahdi said:


> My frank opinion is that most Americans not only haven't served, but don't know - and don't want to know - anything about those in the military.  They'd rather just not be bothered about it.




Well, let's not make like that's special.  Most Americans don't know about firefighters, or cops, or minorities, or the disabled, or those stuck in foster care, or *anything* that isn't their personal direct experience - and don't want to know.

Heck, most of those in the military don't really know or want to know about the troubles of others - they are rather focused on their own issues.  Generalization:  for the most part, humans don't care or want to know about the troubles of others.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 28, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sure, there are benefits to serving your country: tax free shopping, free healthcare on active duty, generous retirement, and sometimes active-duty housing benefits.  But military families give up a lot, too: limited autonomy in key life decisions, military salaries that are not comparable to analogous ones in the private sector, preventing you from retiring when you want, the possibility of being called back to active service after you've retired, and so forth.




Whenever people talk about all the great benefits, like "Free health care", they never talk about just how low the salaries are.   You mentioned it, but it bears the effort to examine it in more detail.

Yeah, I got "free" healthcare, housing, and food, technically.  In reality?  I had to buy my own food because you were limited in how much you could take in the chow hall, and it wasn't enough, and they gave everyone the same portion (the 5'2" 110lb guy got the same as me, a 6'3" 200lb guy).  I actually did an experiment in Korea.  For a month, I ate nothing but the 3 meals at the chow hall.  I lost 8 pounds in that month.

I got free housing too.  A one-room area that I shared with a roommate (there is no privacy) and a shared bathroom with another two other guys.  I guess that's close to college dorms.

But this is why I say it wasn't free.  I figure I probably worked from 5am to 6pm on average every day (from PT to going home), with a LOT of evening and weekend working going on.  Let's say 265 hours a month.  I made $700 a month, and this was in the mid 90s.  So that's $2.65 an hour, not even counting the times I was actually deployed living in a tent for months on end.

So those benefits?  Not exactly free lol.  Think of it like "pre-tax contributions'.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 28, 2015)

At 700/ month, what rank were you?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 28, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Whenever people talk about all the great benefits, like "Free health care", they never talk about just how low the salaries are.   You mentioned it, but it bears the effort to examine it in more detail.




If you're some kind of specialist/officer, your salary might be 1/10th or less of what you could pull in the private sector.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 28, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> At 700/ month, what rank were you?




That was PFC, IIRC.  When I got out in 98 as an E-5, I was making more.  But as Danny says:



Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you're some kind of specialist/officer, your salary might be 1/10th or less of what you could pull in the private sector.




A line manager aircraft mechanic (I was a Blackhawk crewchief/mechanic) in the civilian world, I would be making a LOT more money.  Which is one of the reasons I got out and became a civilian 

So all those "free benefits" you hear about in the military aren't all that free, in the big picture of things.


----------



## was (Aug 7, 2015)

-The healthcare provided to U.S. military personnel is certainly not 'free', it is figured into their salaries and benefits packages.  The year before I left active duty, back in 1995, they gave me a 'rough' breakdown of my salary and benefits.  The values they placed upon housing, food and healthcare were nearly three times my take home pay and far exceed anything that I have seen since in the private sector, even 20+ years later.  

-According to the studies that I have read, mostly the Navy and Army Times newspapers, the exceedingly high healthcare prices paid by military members, over the course of a 20-year career, average out to the estimated cost paid by private sector retirees over a 40-45 year career. The common fallacy held by the public is, that because a military career is only twenty years, they must be paying less for healthcare in the long run. 

-Finally, having parents who work for the VA healthcare system, who are also veterans, let me state that the healthcare received by many military retirees is not of equal quality to that provided by the private sector.  Chronically under-funded and under-staffed, in terms of medical personnel not administrators, VA hospitals and clinics has resulted in long waits and a decline in the services provided.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 7, 2015)

Larry Niven's acronym comes to mind: T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Aug 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Larry Niven's acronym comes to mind: T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.




and for the record let me state what that means for those of us that might not undertand it:
T.=there's
A.=Ain't
N.=no
S.=such
T.=thing
A.=as
A.=a
F.=free
L.= lunch


----------



## Valador (Sep 2, 2015)

Sorry to drag this thread back up, but I'm ETS'ing in 9 days after fulfilling my 4 year contract with the US Army. All I want to say is this -

 this , give me my DD214. Thanks.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 2, 2015)

Valador said:


> Sorry to drag this thread back up, but I'm ETS'ing in 9 days after fulfilling my 4 year contract with the US Army. All I want to say is this -
> 
> this , give me my DD214. Thanks.




That's cool; not everyone is cut out for it.  Good Luck in your future endeavors.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 2, 2015)

Valador said:


> Sorry to drag this thread back up, but I'm ETS'ing in 9 days after fulfilling my 4 year contract with the US Army. All I want to say is this -
> 
> this , give me my DD214. Thanks.





Congrats!  And here's wishing you a smooth transition.  Biggest problem for me was the difference in managing people in the army to managing civilians.  You can't yell at a civilian or drag them out to the flight line and forcibly hose them off because they stink so bad and live in filth


----------



## Valador (Sep 3, 2015)

Thanks, guys. My biggest issue is that I joined at an older age (26) and I have a hard time dealing with all the stupid crap that comes along with being in the military because I have real world experience and maturity outside of the Army, so I don't buy into all the BS from the Army culture. I think I would have gotten along better in the "old" Army when NCO's could put hands on soldiers when they got out of line and smoked them til they passed out. This "new" Army is too worried about offending people and having someone file a complaint on them. It's pathetic. It's some Mickey Mouse watered down crap now.

Anyways, I've been stuck in the middle of nowhere Germany for the last 3 years, unable to see any kind of break from the droves of low IQ morons that I have to work with. Seriously, the military will take anyone, including child molesters and rapists... Every other day is some training on not raping people and not doing drugs...

I'm 30 now, I feel like I'm 60, and we were all treated like we were 5. When we weren't busy being combat janitors, I was a networking tech with multiple certs which I can use to make a lot more on the civilian side than I would have ever made in the Army if I stayed in.

The only positive I have is they're paying for my college and I also got to travel Europe with my wife while I was here.


----------

