TriCare to be Cut to Encourage Enrollment in Obamacare.

[Guest]

So no cuts to the military are warranted or ??

Is that really what you think I said? C'mon man.

I think there are many things we need to be better and more efficient at when we spend our citizen's tax dollars

The list of defense item to cut is long and distinguished. The people things are not at the top of any list of mine though.

If you have been watching you see the politicians act contrary to DoD recommendations for purely political reasons. The defense budget is filled with pork which then corrupts the process. Simple as that.

My point is that as a civilian I look at those young soldiers and airmen and I want them taken care of very well. They are volunteering to serve so I can live my fat, dumb and lazy life free from the ugly thoughts of war or fear of terrorists with the full expectation that the global economy will not melt down because someone out there decides to shut down global trade lanes.

I think my feelings were amplified by the fact that I spent last week in Europe where everything is so screwed up and people are pussies and the taxes are insane and the quality of life and individual freedoms and opportunities suck. They depend on us to do the expensive and difficult work because we can and they cannot.

I take it you are for losing your pension, losing other benefits, and paying more for Tricare then too?

Actually, he is ok with much of that.

UTSF if you want to know where he lands on your question. He has articulated his position in a thoughtful way.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Rainman A-10

[Vertigo]

Is that really what you think I said? C'mon man.

No. Just wanted clarification. Your post came off that way, but I didn't believe you would take that stance.

Sure cuts in the DoD are warranted, but not before the freeloaders. Sorry, but there's a huge difference between earned and entitled...

I agree. However the DoD isn't comprised solely of its people. When the Navy says they want to mothball some subs and Congress says no because they want to keep lining the pockets of the companies in their district that maintain those outdated subs... well that's comprising the military as well. I don't think those companies earned the right to keep profiting off the U.S. taxpayer when they aren't needed nor wanted. That's just another government handout... or entitlement.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Vertigo

[nsplayr]

ns, your quote is spin. You know that.

Sure it is, but it conveys what the administration is saying publically is the reason for the veto threat. Do you have reason to think there other more devious issues at play (such as tricare fees as the Free Beacon speculates)?

I especially like how both articles you posted don't talk about the Tricare rate hikes. Nice job. So I guess you don't care about the huge target on your back? I take it you are for losing your pension, losing other benefits, and paying more for Tricare then too?

That's exactly my point...tricare fees are not a major driver of the administration's veto threat of the Defense appropriations bill according to the analysis/reporting of several other, more credible news sources.

WRT the Free Beacon being a credible media source, here is is straight from the horse's mouth:

The Washington Free Beacon, a project of the 501©4 Center for American Freedom, is a nonprofit online newspaper that began publication on February 7, 2012. Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the professional left hopes will never see the light of day, the Free Beacon produces in-depth and investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media criticism. Whether it’s exposing cronyism, dissecting the relationship between the progressive movement and the mainstream media, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that currently is not being fully covered by other news organizations.

They do not even attempt to claim that they are unbiased or apolitical or bipartsian or whatever. The debut article from the editor was literally called "Combat Journalism" with a subhead of "Taking the Fight to the Left." It's an opinion outlet pure and simple, take it for what it is rather than a hard news organization.

Edited June 30, 2012 by nsplayr

[Spartacus]

Sure it is, but it conveys what the administration is saying publically is the reason for the veto threat. Do you have reason to think there other more devious issues at play (such as tricare fees as the Free Beacon speculates)?

That's exactly my point...tricare fees are not a major driver of the administration's veto threat of the Defense appropriations bill according to the analysis/reporting of several other, more credible news sources.

WRT the Free Beacon being a credible media source, here is is straight from the horse's mouth:

They do not even attempt to claim that they are unbiased or apolitical or bipartsian or whatever. The debut article from the editor was literally called "Combat Journalism" with a subhead of "Taking the Fight to the Left." It's an opinion outlet pure and simple, take it for what it is rather than a hard news organization.

The Tricare fees may not be a major portion of what the administration is saying but it is part of it and the hikes are part of what the POTUS wants. I don't think the Freebeacon article is saying that the Tricare fees are the only reason for the administration saying that the bill will be vetoed, although the article only talks about that point, which is all the article is focusing on.

I never stated that Freebeacon was the best and most credible news source in the world, but am still waiting for someone to say that what they are saying is wrong. The POTUS does want the hikes, and as an opinion news source they are focusing on that fact, and as a member of the military I appreciate that someone is out there choosing to point that out. It will affect military members' lives.

[Jaded]

The POTUS does want the hikes, and as an opinion news source they are focusing on that fact, and as a member of the military I appreciate that someone is out there choosing to point that out. It will affect military members' lives.

What are you talking about? Affect our lives? Aren't all of the proposed increases only for working age retirees?

https://www.military.com/benefits/tricare/retiree/proposed-tricare-fee-changes.html

FreeBeacon even titled the article a misleading, "Obama to Soldiers: pay up", when in fact, soldiers are completely unaffected. We can argue about whether retirees deserve a fee hike, but let's stop pretending that the common service member is at all affected.

Here's the wall street journal's opinion. They provide explanations about the provisions to try to back up their opinions, rather than just spouting anti-Obama bullshit.

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303665904577452382402650966.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Spartacus]

What are you talking about? Affect our lives? Aren't all of the proposed increases only for working age retirees?

https://www.military....ee-changes.html

Read your own WSJ link dude. The Obama budget wants to raise Tricare fees for everyone, and wants to raise co-pays for everyone.

FreeBeacon even titled the article a misleading, "Obama to Soldiers: pay up", when in fact, soldiers are completely unaffected. We can argue about whether retirees deserve a fee hike, but let's stop pretending that the common service member is at all affected.

Here's the wall street journal's opinion. They provide explanations about the provisions to try to back up their opinions, rather than just spouting anti-Obama bullshit.

https://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj

For me the fact of the matter is that I do not trust the current administration to have military members' best interests in mind. The administration has established a pattern with regard to the military and some people are pissed. Example: When Obama first took office he pretty quickly tried to establish that wounded combat vets would have to pay for their own healthcare once they were out of the military. This meant that even if they had lost a limb and received the MOH the government wouldn't be helping them with healthcare costs once out of the military. This was so unpopular that the administration finally gave up on it, but to me it illustrates how they view the military and how the military should be dealt with.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Spartacus

[Jaded]

The enrollment fees and deductible changes would affect military retirees only.

For the pharmacy co-pays:

Military Treatment Facilities

No Change – Remains $0 Co-Pay

[papajuice77]

I will stop complaining about this sort of thing AFTER the bureaucrats and government aristocrats start cutting their own benefits etc first! Just another reason to punch at the end of my commitment...

Checks.

Don't get distracted talking about the 95% of the population or whatever that doesn't serve in the military. The "class warfare" that's erupting isn't between the rich and poor, or Wall Street and main street. It is about a consistently more disconnected ruling class in this country inciting envy and dependency amongst the rest of us in order to keep themselves in power. The military and its benefits might be getting screwed, but make no mistake, so is the rest of the country. It's just a shame that folks don't recognize it. As has been said, the military is an easy place to start when it comes to social engineering and scapegoating. It's always a savvy political idea to deflect blame for financial crises on small, elite elements in society - just look how the Germans handled it in the 30s. Retirement benefits might the least of our worries.

[Spartacus]

For the pharmacy co-pays:

Well, sure if you only pick what you want to out of each article that is what they say, but If you actually read an entire article that you post you will read things like:

The budget proposed to increase Tricare fees for everyone at the rate of medical inflation.

and

Proposed Pharmacy Co-Pays for All TRICARE Beneficiaries

RX Source

FY 2012

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

Retail – 1 month fill

Generic

$5

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

Brand Name

$12

$26

$28

$30

$32

$34

Non-Formulary*

$25

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mail-Order – 3 month fill

Generic

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$9

Brand

$9

$26

$28

$30

$32

$34

Non-Formulary

$25

$51

$54

$58

$62

$66

Look, I am not going to argue with you anymore. We will just go in circles. For some reason you think that Tricare won't be touched. That's fine, but I say they are trying to touch it and the title of this thread also "eludes" to it as well. Enough said...

Edited for accuracy.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Spartacus

[Ram]

It's difficult to understand because it's not even true.

No, military retirees became vested in a system of government healthcare after 20+ years of service. It's part of a benefits package. It has nothing to do with earning anything. Unless you're going to sit there and tell me a guy who does 8 years and multiple combat tours as a ground pounder and then gets out hasn't "earned" healthcare, but some dude who does 20 years behind a desk and doesn't deploy once has, indeed, earned his healthcare. Or, gee, maybe it has nothing to do with "earning" anything!

Oh...you're right.

I forgot: It's the 401k contribution matching, stock options, and guaranteed pension that keeps my retention meter in the green when I'm off all over the world missing my kid's birthday / not being with my family for Christmas morning / missing my grandmother's funeral.

You're smoking crack if you don't think that health care is earned.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Ram

[di1630]

You know, maybe there's something to the prevalent political philosophy in these forums of "cut taxes, and also all the government programs that don't personally affect me!"

I think its more the fact that its not right to seek savings at the expense of the military when so many other programs "Welfare, food stamps, etc." programs are funded to many undeserving people.

I have no problem taking cuts but they have to be prioritized and I damn well deserve my benefits more than some lazy SOB who would rather sit on a couch than take a job he/she consider beneath them,

[Loach]

It's difficult to understand because it's not even true.

No, military retirees became vested in a system of government healthcare after 20+ years of service. It's part of a benefits package. It has nothing to do with earning anything. Unless you're going to sit there and tell me a guy who does 8 years and multiple combat tours as a ground pounder and then gets out hasn't "earned" healthcare, but some dude who does 20 years behind a desk and doesn't deploy once has, indeed, earned his healthcare. Or, gee, maybe it has nothing to do with "earning" anything!

Either you have a seriously warped idea of who should earn healthcare and who shouldn't, or you're being intellectually dishonest and applying value judgments towards what is clearly an objective, vested retirement benefit for the purpose of retention. This very same intellectual dishonesty is precisely how people in the military can be so obviously hypocritical in advocating hardcore libertarianism, while at the same time demanding unsustainable benefits from the government that they believe they "earned". That, or they aren't so naive, and it's a case of "###### you got mine". I'm the latter, but just more honest about my intentions.

How can you say it's not "earned"? Is it because you're equating military retirement/benefits with social programs? Social programs require (generally) no action. You simply apply, and receive benefits (with some exceptions, I know). Hell, you don't even have to be a USC to receive some benefits!

To get that military retirement, one has to sacrifice and "EARN" it. Whether it be your own physical health; stress on your family from missing b-days, births, anniversaries, or picking up and moving your family every couple of years to some armpit of the world, it's EARNED and it's a SACRIFICE. How often have you heard someone be given the option to "be there for conception or be there for the birth, but not for both" when pondering an activation and deployment? And no, I'm not bitching about it -- it comes with the job, but at the end, so does the retirement and benefits and the hope that I'll be able to take my kids trick or treeting while they're still young; that I'll be there on a Christmas morning when they're opening gifts and still believe in Santa Claus; that I'll be there when my son does whatever the hell he's going to do in the future that most parents take for granted! I can pretty much guarantee you that no one collecting social security disability (rampant with fraud) or TANF has spent Christmas day "earning" their benefit, as the post office is closed that day (and that's the most anyone of them needs to do to earn their benefits is walk to their mailbox and collect their check).

Whatever happend to JFK's message of "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?". It seems today few people do much for their country. Instead, many (around 40%) are looking for their next gov't handout instead of looking to improve their lives and make this a better place. Service in the military is something I signed up to do 25 years and about a dozen deployments ago. I wonder what you and others on the left have done? Sure, some of you have joined the military -- but what about the 90% of Americans (or more) that haven't ? What have they done for the USA? paid their taxes? I do that too. Voted? I do that too. Jury duty? I do that also. So, what sacrifices have they made? I'm not asking for some unbelieveable pension and GM style healh care package. Hell, even State employees (in NJ for certain -- I worked in State Gov't) have MUCH better plans than TRICARE for retirees. Yet,you're so quick and willing to take from those few who have served, and by serving, I mean more than our civic duties of paying taxes and jury duty -- I'm talking about real sacrifice. EARNING that retirement! Your're despicable.

[Danny Noonin]

It's part of a benefits package. It has nothing to do with earning anything.

How does one qualify for such a "benefits package?" You have to work for at least 20 years. Which to me qualifies as "earning" it.

Benefits are part of compensation for work. Compensation--whether in salary or benefits-- is earned.

[Guest]

military retirees became vested in a system of government healthcare after 20+ years of service. It's part of a benefits package. It has nothing to do with earning anything.

Are you speaking as an HR specialist?

Just so you know, benefits packages are earned and they are not always equal among all employees. Employees working side by side can be entitled to different benefit packages. Nothing unusual. Their benefits are not entitlements, they are earned.

Unless you're going to sit there and tell me a guy who does 8 years and multiple combat tours as a ground pounder and then gets out hasn't "earned" healthcare, but some dude who does 20 years behind a desk and doesn't deploy once has, indeed, earned his healthcare.

Your first person does receive benefits.

The second guy also receives benefits.

The benefits are not exactly equal.

If the first guy is awarded the Medal of Honor he will receive benefits tha second guys doesn't receive. Because he earned them.

you're being intellectually dishonest and applying value judgments towards what is clearly an objective, vested retirement benefit for the purpose of retention.

Your point about retention is valid.

However, that does not invalidate other reasons to place a value on the benefits based on service and sacrifice.

This very same intellectual dishonesty is precisely how people in the military can be so obviously hypocritical in advocating hardcore libertarianism, while at the same time demanding unsustainable benefits from the government that they believe they "earned". That, or they aren't so naive, and it's a case of "fuck you got mine". I'm the latter, but just more honest about my intentions.

Sustainability is relative to the overall budget and revenue streams. Military retirement beneifts are easily sustainable basis the ability of the government to pay for them. However, our overall deficit spending is not sustainable. Choices must be made and things will be considered valuable or not as we attempt to get a handle on the deficit.

You want to talk about purity of thought? Then you must consider all of the facts.

Here's a polarity for you...

Review: Changes Needed In Guard, Reserve Pay

By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- America's citizen soldiers, who train in their hometowns for a weekend a month and two weeks a year, receive more money for one day of training at home than their fellow National Guard and Reserve members earn for a day serving in the war zone.

Pentagon officials defended the pay discrepancy as incentive for National Guard and reservists who give up their weekends and must be ready on a moment's notice to serve. But it's one of many problems in the complex Guard and Reserve compensation system detailed in a new Pentagon review that recommends changes to make the salaries and benefits more equitable across the board.

The study noted that Guard members and reservists get two day's pay for each day of weekend training — totaling four day's pay for the weekend every month. In contrast, when they are called up to active duty and are deployed overseas to Afghanistan, they get a day's pay for a day's work. As an example, an officer in the reserves or the Guard could get $407 for a day of weekend duty, but get $269 for a day on active duty, or $318 for a day deployed to Afghanistan. Enlisted members could get $171 for a day of weekend duty, $134 for a day on active duty and $161 for a day deployed to war.

The Defense Department will consider the preliminary recommendations made in the review.

Solving the issue, however, is tricky because defense officials realize that one remedy would be cutting the pay that Guard and Reserve receive for weekend training at home.

"That's a sensitive issue, because you're affecting what people receive," said Thomas Bush, who directed the recent review of military compensation, which included the pay problem.

Bush noted that when troops — including Guard and Reserve members — go to war on active duty they get additional hostile fire pay and their salaries are tax free. But even considering those additional benefits, he said, "a day on weekend training is more money."

"It doesn't make sense," he said. "It would make more sense, I think, to have a more uniform pay schedule, like the active duty has."

Pete Duffy, the acting legislative director for the National Guard Association of the U.S., said changing or reducing pay for weekend warriors would face heavy opposition around the country.

"It's an incentive for National Guard and Reserve members to serve," he said, adding that when members have weekend duty, most also have regular jobs, so they end up working 12 days without a day off.

Support and benefits for the Guard and Reserve have grown in recent years, after a backlash — particularly from Congress members and state leaders — during the early years of the Iraq war. Officials were furious that some Guard units were being sent to combat with equipment that was often hand-me-downs from active duty brigades.

There also was a push made to beef up enticements for people to join the Guard, as the U.S. military struggled to meet the demands of both wars. The Pentagon increasingly had to tap National Guard brigades to meet the escalating demand for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as combat deployments were extended to 15 months and enlistment standards were lowered to meet recruiting goals.

Reservists also were activated for the war, sent overseas to fill specific expertise gaps or called to fill in at bases in the United States.

The review also recommended allowing Guard members and reservists to begin collecting their military retirement on the 30th anniversary of their service, as long as they have worked the equivalent of 20 years of service. Currently reservists who serve 20 years can't begin collecting their retirement pay until age 60.

The Guard and Reserve pay and benefits system has evolved over the decades into what the Pentagon review called convoluted, confusing, and frustrating. It confounds the service members as well as their commanders who have to request troops for missions and determine their duty status. That status governs their pay and benefits, but can often change monthly.

According to the review, Guard and Reserve members can be called up under as many as 30 different duty statuses, making the system difficult to administer and nearly impossible for troops to navigate and understand. The review recommends paring that down to just six different classifications.

Very broadly, reservists can be called to active duty for federal missions such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; or they can train and perform missions under the authority of their state, such as for forest fires or hurricanes.

There are seven reserve components in the U.S. military: The Army Guard and Reserve, the Air Guard and Reserve, the Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve and the Coast Guard Reserve. They total more than 1.1 million members, with an operating budget of nearly $50 billion.

[BFM this]

What she fails to recognize is the difference in work produced for a day of active duty per a day of Reserve/NG.

I am currently AD. If I have a training event next week, I may have to prepare. While I prepare, I am still getting paid.

When I go to this training event, I will not have to ask for time off of work, it will be built into my schedule.

When I was a reservist, I had to get ready for the training scheduled next drill weekend. I had to do this while back at home wearing civilian clothes. For no pay.

I also had to ensure that I had time off of work when drill weekend came around--possibly for a loss of pay.

Apples and oranges, Lolita.

Edited July 2, 2012 by BFM this

[Spartacus]

So, don't take it as personal when I support slashing things of no use to me, and rerouting that money towards things I can extract value from. I have no problem raiding retiree benefits (that I probably won't stay in long enough to qualify for), as long as my taxes remain low, my income remains intact, and I can just rely on the government entitlements to take care of my extended family and friends, so I don't have to. This is a "win" for me.

Well, I do take it personally and I think a lot of others do too. I am constantly amazed at the character and dedication of the people that I serve around and they ARE better than the average person in this country IMO. I also love walking into the pharmacy on base and filling a prescription only to find out that the 80 year old volunteer handing me that prescription is a retired O-6. He doesn't have to be there doing that but he and most of those that I serve with are doing it for more than just themselves. They don't talk about entitlements and wanting the government to take care of their friends and families. They talk about service and things that are bigger than themselves, so for you to say what you said here is ignorant, offensive, and down right disgusting. You should be worrying about what you can do to help your family and friends and not what the government can do. That is nothing but a cop-out. The ideas and thoughts that you presented are the same as those that are hurting our country and gotten us into this mess IMO. I suggest that you apologize for what you have said on a forum full of people that have sacrificed a lot in the service of their country or else maybe you should just lay low for a while.

[17D_guy]

..retirees having free healthcare...

It's not free, that is all.

[Loach]

Oh, right, a lack of character. Okay, thanks for that insightful gem of wisdom, baseops forums user "gearpig"!

Of course you take it personally, because with this post you've demonstrated a complete inability to think objectively. I am constantly amazed at the failure of [allegedly] educated adult men and women to just completely disregard logic and resort to appeals to emotion to get their point across. So what if I support things in my own rational self-interest? You do, too. Or, are you going to tell me that you don't currently, and never plan on, drawing the very same retirement benefits you're defending? It's like you arrived at a conclusion, and then went back and made up a feel good story to justify it.

There are plenty of reasonable economic arguments against entitlements. There are plenty of [weak, imo] economic arguments in support of retirees having free healthcare. But you didn't make any of those arguments. You go on and on about being about something bigger than yourself, and then, in literally the same paragraph, say that the average person doesn't deserve free healthcare, because they are beneath you. And then you claim the moral high ground? Seriously? Oh, and then you want me to apologize for daring to disagree with your completely twisted moral construct that makes absolutely no sense.

And get over the damn sacrifice mentality, it's not going to work on this forum. Surprise, I make sacrifices too! I know this may shock you, but all kinds of people make sacrifices for this country, in more ways than just military service. And a lot of them don't agree with you.

Maybe we should all just whip out our sacrifices and see whose is bigger?

Yeah, maybe we should compare sacrifices -- I'm curious. Aside from military service, what other "sacrifices" do Americans make?

[Darth]

For Joe1234 - you are correct from a business perspective drive by MBAs and HR personnel if you view benefits as being part of a compensation package. However, people who view the military as a business and want to operate it that IMO way are misguided. The military is not a business, people rarely choose to serve for 20 years because the benefits they get are so awesome that they stay regardless of the sacrifices they and their families make and after 20 years can sit in their recliner and enjoy the good life. Certainly tough choices must be made for the larger good of the country but trying to do it by cutting defense spending and balancing the budget on the backs of retirees is ridiculous. Our elected leadership talks in terms of billions when the deficit is trillions. Significantly increasing the cost of Tricare as an insurance with the argument "well this is what civilians pay for health care" is a slippery slope until it turns into no retirement benefits until your 65 (because your vested at some point.) Then see what the compensation/retainment argument does then.

[Spartacus]

Oh, right, a lack of character. Okay, thanks for that insightful gem of wisdom, baseops forums user "gearpig"!

Of course you take it personally, because with this post you've demonstrated a complete inability to think objectively. I am constantly amazed at the failure of [allegedly] educated adult men and women to just completely disregard logic and resort to appeals to emotion to get their point across. So what if I support things in my own rational self-interest? You do, too. Or, are you going to tell me that you don't currently, and never plan on, drawing the very same retirement benefits you're defending? It's like you arrived at a conclusion, and then went back and made up a feel good story to justify it.

There are plenty of reasonable economic arguments against entitlements. There are plenty of [weak, imo] economic arguments in support of retirees having free healthcare. But you didn't make any of those arguments. You go on and on about being about something bigger than yourself, and then, in literally the same paragraph, say that the average person doesn't deserve free healthcare, because they are beneath you. And then you claim the moral high ground? Seriously? Oh, and then you want me to apologize for daring to disagree with your completely twisted moral construct that makes absolutely no sense.

And get over the damn sacrifice mentality, it's not going to work on this forum. Surprise, I make sacrifices too! I know this may shock you, but all kinds of people make sacrifices for this country, in more ways than just military service. And a lot of them don't agree with you.

Maybe we should all just whip out our sacrifices and see whose is bigger?

WOW! I don't really know what to say. You make a lot of assumptions here and I'm pretty much done with you, but here is my last point: IMO people in the military are making some big sacrifices that the average civilian doesn't understand. We all know them and understand them but they may not, 6 month deployments, 365's, being away from family, losing friends etc. I'm sorry but there aren't many civilian jobs that require that of their employees so to me there is absolutely no justification for a comparison between the two like you are doing. Finally, your comments are laced with ignorance, selfishness, and mockery. Did you ever stop and think that maybe not everyone thinks like you do in being so self-centered? Not everyone only cares about their bottom line and expects the government to take care of their friends and family. You clearly don't understand or at least agree with that so you say that I am spouting drivel and am not being logical just because I don't agree with your point of view. There are strong arguments for both sides that are logical.

[17D_guy]

Compare us to just GS and tell me we have "free" healthcare. There's a yearly fee for Tricare now. Are you saying retired folks should after retirement step into the world with a Dec, a atta boy and whatever they stashed in the TSP (which is relatively new)? Are you advocated a graduated system? All I can discern from your Patrick "Do you like Huey Lewis and the News" Bateman responses, is you're for nothing upon retirement. Correct?

Still waiting for that HR director/CEO to order me* to execute a deadly mission where kill/capture+torture is a real concern. Or the business that sends me away for a year, with meager stipends to cover the incurred cost during that time. Having known some folks who are civilian employeed and get moved like we do the DoD gets off cheap.

Where there is a business literally killing people/things and/or executing a national security/policy mission please let me know. I'll transfer over the TSP to a 401K, stop saluting the flag and throw on the walmart greeter vest as I route cyber bullets in their direction.

* By me, I mean you fliers/PJs mostly . Chance of me leading a convoy are slim to none. I can't even volunteer to deploy in current position.

[so.it.goes]

Why I will never understand the left, exhibit A:

Please don't make blanket statements like this... He may be from the left, but does not speak for everyone.

This is part of what is wrong with modern politics, in my mind. I am smart enough to know the difference between someone firmly implanted on the right and a "right-wing nut".

You can't lump everyone in the country into one of two categories...

Edited July 3, 2012 by so.it.goes

[hindsight2020]

For Joe1234 - you are correct from a business perspective drive by MBAs and HR personnel if you view benefits as being part of a compensation package. However, people who view the military as a business and want to operate it that IMO way are misguided. The military is not a business, people rarely choose to serve for 20 years because the benefits they get are so awesome that they stay regardless of the sacrifices they and their families make and after 20 years can sit in their recliner and enjoy the good life. Certainly tough choices must be made for the larger good of the country but trying to do it by cutting defense spending and balancing the budget on the backs of retirees is ridiculous. Our elected leadership talks in terms of billions when the deficit is trillions. Significantly increasing the cost of Tricare as an insurance with the argument "well this is what civilians pay for health care" is a slippery slope until it turns into no retirement benefits until your 65 (because your vested at some point.) Then see what the compensation/retainment argument does then.

I don't see it as that black and white. And I disagree with the above. I'd say I see a fuckin boatload of career enlisted Tech-to-Senior that fall in the category highlighted in bold. You dang skippy they do it for the pay and benefits. In the civilian world they'd be middle managers at the shoe department at macys making 35K FOR LIFE on a good year with no healthcare and a non-matching 401k. whats the compounding interest of contributing jack shit for 40 years again? The military has a very well established economic draft. Nowhere can you hop out of high school and make living wages for 15 out of 20 years for no formal education when compared to the millions of underemployed in this country. Honestly it's not the officers creating the pressure, it's the assload of enlisted SrA thru E-8 who intend on living a well-to-do Captain's lifestyle two new cars and three sick kids to a new house that causes the economic pressure. Again, strolling down to a more enlisted heavy branch like the Army, clues you into what demographic we're really fussing about. That's a lot of gimme gimme gimme for no meaningfully-educated workforce, if you were to put them all on the street at once.

This whole altruism in military service is greatly overstated. One stroll down to Kileen TX in that military city-state, and I realized we're running a different kind of welfare, that is all. It's a management question, like anything else involving labor. Ours has particular teeth when it comes to enforcing contracts, but it's otherwise no different. The argument of comparing it to real drafts is moot. Working at walmart or making a lot more for the hardship of being told how high to jump for 20 years is still a no-brainer to most with no options. I personally know these lifers; they didn't stick to the gig for a sense of altruism, they did it because thye'd be out on their ass doing something for a lot less money and benefits. Altruism's got dick to do with that. Otherwise, none of these benefits would be required to properly staff the machine. I don't have any fingers left after I count the number of people I know racing to get on 30+1day MPA before the wife pops, and these motherfuckers are living in 350K houses. Altruism.....LOL

Civilians are apathetic because they're underemployed. Granted there's a huge amount of dead weight in the civilian sector, but that's what our society is.

The "cut their welfare before mine" argument is noted, but it's hardly gospel. And I say this as a Reservist who has had the privilege of dealing with the "indignity" of justifying his existence to a duality of warring employers, both of whom would like nothing more to fire you for not being as committed to the other. If anything we're the true fokin heroes, taking a paycut to do the same job at the expense of my ability to barter for my civilian compensation and promotion against my civilian coworkers, all for the sake of altrusim right? Right. Go take BAH type II for your service to your country and then go talk about patriotism and sacrifice. AD cats would be all up in arms, just like they are when TMO shorts them 20 bucks on a mileage calculation, and these are officers for Christ Sake... Just a different shade o welfare is all....Too many REMFs and support folk in the peacetime military to make a convincing argument about the sacrifices of some of those downrange universally justifying said entitlements for all. But, as it stands, no way to stratify those differences in a practical enough way to be equitable. So soundbytes and generalizations is what you're left with.

To be fair, military retirement is akin to a really good law enforcement pension, so there are analogies out there. If civilian LE agencies can politically pull for the preservation of their benefits, more power to them.

Edited July 3, 2012 by hindsight2020

[Darth]

Hindsight2020 - Your point that E6-E7s stay to the end to make retirement is probably correct. However, how many walmart workers were killed on the job by being told "Stop that guy with the gun?" If, as you say, these folks stay because the alternatives are worse, so be it. They still earned those benefits (as miserably uneducated and with no other options as they are apparently.) My point is these benefits are earned and should not be viewed as a compensation/retention cost issue to be controlled in the same way as they are by a civilian organization.

[Prozac]

You can't lump everyone in the country into one of two categories...

Amen brotha.