Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (611263)	5/13/2011 10:41:44 PM
From: Don Hurst	Respond to of 1576883

>>" We KNOW the cost of the Iraq War and it was nowhere NEAR $3 Trillion. "<< Yup, oh yeah...you "KNOW"... >>"Pentagon health care costs skyrocket Options include raising premiums for working-age military retirees, families Donna Cassata / / Associated Press Washington— A military built for fighting wars is looking more and more like a health care entitlement program. Costs of the program that provides health coverage to some 10 million active duty personnel, retirees, reservists and their families have jumped from $19 billion in 2001 to $53 billion in the Pentagon's latest budget request. Desperate to cut spending in Washington's time of fiscal austerity, President Barack Obama has proposed increasing the fees for working-age retirees in the decades-old health program, known as TRICARE. After years of resisting proposed increases for the military men and women who sacrificed for a nation, budget-conscious lawmakers suddenly are poised to make them pay a bit more for their health care, though not on the president's terms. The current fees, unchanged in 11 years, are $230 a year for an individual and $460 for a family. That's far less than what civilian federal workers pay for health care, about $5,000 a year, and what most other people in the U.S. pay. Obama is seeking a fee increase of $2.50 per month for an individual and $5 per month for families, which approaches the current price of a gallon of gasoline. Future increases starting in 2013 would be pegged to rising costs as measured by the national health care expenditure index produced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which projects 6.2 percent growth. "Health care is eating the department alive," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said bluntly — two years ago. The explosive expense of health care rivals what the Pentagon shells out to buy fighter aircraft, submarines and high-tech weapons, and is about half of the $118 billion that the Obama administration wants in the next budget to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, backs Gates' proposal to raise fees for working-age retirees in the next budget, and he has the support of the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state. But McKeon, R-Calif., rejects the plan to link increases in 2013 and beyond to the health care expenditure index. He wants to tie any future increases to military retirees' cost-of-living adjustment, which this year was zero. McKeon released his version of the defense bill Monday. The full committee was set to consider the bill this week and it could make changes. The 2.1-million strong Veterans of Foreign Wars promises to fight any increase. They say any hikes aren't fair to those who gave up 20 years of their youth to serve the nation. Congress repeatedly has resisted Pentagon efforts to increase copayments or fees, arguing that members of the military and their families sacrifice far more than the average American, with a career that includes long and dangerous deployments overseas that overshadow civilian work. "<< >>" Yes, that which was the most fiscally sensible health care bill ever to be passed, which has come in massively UNDER BUDGET every year,... "<< Oh yeah..."under budget" paid for by 0, ZERO, $ funded for it. >>" You mean the "projected" budget surplus which never developed due to the Clinton Recession followed by 9/11? "<< Yup, the budget surplus that Greenspan thought was so dangerous in his testimony to Congress, incredible, and Bush thought the rich 2% needed it so they could "trickle it" back down to the other 98% instead of even considering the future needs of the country. >>" You mean the housing bust... "<< Yup, the housing bubble accompanied by the Finance Industry's theft leading to our economic ditch that Bush ignored while he focused on getting his family revenge on Saddam.