Verterans& Retirees benifits

[southbound]

To all my fellow camping vererans and military retirees, Noticed about the closing of commissaries. That not all the Congressional Budget Office wants to cut. Defense Department and the COB want tocut Concurrent receipt pay and other veterans benefits. Increase Tri care
Read, all the cuts they want to do in last weeks Navy Times. At this rate it will be the 70's all over again, when ships could not go out to sea due to not enough money. Yet the Congressional Budget Office keeps all their benifits, good salaries, which come from us and outside companies.:(
Sorry for ranting about this but have no where else to vent and I know there are a lot of military out there in the camping world.

[LarryJM]

calewjohnson wrote:

LarryJM wrote:

AprilWhine wrote:

calewjohnson wrote:
I will say this, I am currently active duty, and have been for 18 years. While I believe that the benefits I was promised when I joined should be honored, I also believe that something has to be done to offset the costs of people and operations. Today, 60 cents of every dollar in our budget goes to personnel (retired and active duty). As we move into the future, that will not be sustainable. We (US Navy) currently have 285 ships, short of the 300 goal we would like to have, I doubt we will ever get back to that number since we do not have a conflict to support that size of a fleet.

From what I can say, there will be a change to retirement coming down the pipe. More of a 401k approach and not needing to stay for a full 20. Is it right? Sure, I know of a lot of folks who cut and run before the 10 year mark because anything more than 10, you may as well do 20. That kind of thinking has kept a lot of mediocre folks in, instead of the knowledgeable technicians I have seen get out.

Next thing, Tri-Care for Life….I may get blasted for saying this, but I think that the premiums should be increased for that benefit. Two really good friends of mine, both retired LtCOL types, pay only $200 or so a year for the benefit. A real steal for such a benefit.

There are many hard questions that need to be asked when looking at our benefits. A pragmatic approach will ensure we do not end up with the failing pensions like some large companies. We can stay on this course of spending and end up with nothing in the end, or we can start trying to fix the problem before it become unrecoverable.

Just my 2 cents.

Cale

Your friends are not being straight with you. 😉

Tricare for life does not cost extra, but you do have to have Medicare Part B. My hubby is enrolled and has been since he became eligible for Medicare.

Yep calewjohnson doesn't understand TCFL as his erronous statement about the $200/yr clearly demonstrates. Nor does he seem to understand the Tricare and TCFL programs in general. I was paying the standard ~$540/yr for Tricare Prime for me and DW and this year with DW still on Tricare Prime and me on TCFL my premiums between her Tricare Prime and my TCFL are effectively $1500+ (270 for her and 1260 for me).

I am one of those that served and retired when we believed that one of the benefits for our sacrifices was free medical for life which was a broken promise when Tricare was started some 5 years after I retired and then Tricare for Life was piled on in 2001. I have up to now seen a zero benefit in TCFL except increased costs, but that could change in the future, but I'm still paying with increasing premiums now for something I thought was not going to cost me anything when I joined back in the 60s.

Larry

Yep, I choose not to mess with Tri-Care, that is my DW's job. My family is Tri-Care Standard, as we refuse to utilize MTFs, mainly because of the continuity of care. I know we pay quite a bit until we hit our caps....unfortunately, last year we hit our cap in DEC....hopefully this year we won't get there so fast.

When I do look to retire, I know I will have to get smart on it, Looking at your numbers though, you are paying close to $130/month, I will check with my buddies, maybe they had said 200/month, which is still a deal... I know the one painful thing about Tri-Care, they will always take second to another insurance, which sounds like why it was mentioned you had above about having to have Medicare.

My wife has insurance for her through her work, however, she is still able to see a couple of doctors that are paid for by Tri-Care...they are not part of her work's network...can you do the same, or does every doctor take Medicare B?

I apologize for the misunderstanding of Tri-Care, but the rest does hold true...

Cale

I'm not going to try and get into all the nitty gritty since I could make a mistake, but in a nut shell when you reach 65 TCFL requires you to apply for Medicare Part B which is the outpatient portion and then basically at no cost Tricare becomes your Medicare supplemental similar to MediGap insurance that many retirees pay for. In general you go to a doctor that takes Medicare and once the cost exceeds the Medicare coverage then Tricare picks up the TAB just like they would with Tricare Prime. For a long, long time Tricare will charge whatever insurance you have to keep the goverment costs down. Now something I'm not sure about is if one can get TCFL once they reach 65 if they haven't been a Tricare Prime enrollee. Furthermore those with insurance provided by their employer they are failing IMO to realize that that option will go away once their employement ends and they will be faced with a MAJOR CHANGE from what I know is how they have to now satisfy their health needs. Also, I have often heard this "continuity" or choice of care being thought of as an issue with Tricare, but I have in my almost 66 years have never known anything, but Military Medicine and the same goes for my DW for almost the last 45years and both our sons who are now in their 30's and 40's and in all our opinions the level of care has be bar none the best available. One issue with many is they don't understand or are not willing to work within the confines of Military or government supported Medicine and IMO that is just a lack of understanding and willingness to truly take charge of their health needs.

In the end it's all about choices and most will agree as you reach Medicare age health costs is a MAJOR CONSIDERATION. When I retired we made a decision to remain in the area of what now are two of the FINEST Military Hospitals (MTFs) ... Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (where the Pres goes along with a lot of members of Congress) and the new state of the art Fort Belvoir Community Family Hospital and get all our medical needs met at those two facilities. If one is eligible to use a MTF being close to one should IMO be just as important as where you want to retire because of weather/taxes/COL, etc. Both myself and DW have had the same Primary Care Doctor for almost the last 15 years and getting things done/approved is as simple as asking ... try that with any other health insurance when you want something like a routine EKG just because it makes you feel better or say a MRI/CAT scan where an X-ray might suffice. No problem since those are basically sunk costs at both MTFs we utilize. In fact our PCM has an EKG for just their use in Internal Medicine Clinic that she is attached to.

Now with all that being said I will say I'm no expert in all the ins and outs of Military Medicine, Medicare and obviously know less than a "ROCK" about the civilian world so my view is obviously slanted in one direction.

Larry

[calewjohnson]

LarryJM wrote:

AprilWhine wrote:

calewjohnson wrote:
I will say this, I am currently active duty, and have been for 18 years. While I believe that the benefits I was promised when I joined should be honored, I also believe that something has to be done to offset the costs of people and operations. Today, 60 cents of every dollar in our budget goes to personnel (retired and active duty). As we move into the future, that will not be sustainable. We (US Navy) currently have 285 ships, short of the 300 goal we would like to have, I doubt we will ever get back to that number since we do not have a conflict to support that size of a fleet.

From what I can say, there will be a change to retirement coming down the pipe. More of a 401k approach and not needing to stay for a full 20. Is it right? Sure, I know of a lot of folks who cut and run before the 10 year mark because anything more than 10, you may as well do 20. That kind of thinking has kept a lot of mediocre folks in, instead of the knowledgeable technicians I have seen get out.

Next thing, Tri-Care for Life….I may get blasted for saying this, but I think that the premiums should be increased for that benefit. Two really good friends of mine, both retired LtCOL types, pay only $200 or so a year for the benefit. A real steal for such a benefit.

There are many hard questions that need to be asked when looking at our benefits. A pragmatic approach will ensure we do not end up with the failing pensions like some large companies. We can stay on this course of spending and end up with nothing in the end, or we can start trying to fix the problem before it become unrecoverable.

Just my 2 cents.

Cale

Your friends are not being straight with you. 😉

Tricare for life does not cost extra, but you do have to have Medicare Part B. My hubby is enrolled and has been since he became eligible for Medicare.

Yep calewjohnson doesn't understand TCFL as his erronous statement about the $200/yr clearly demonstrates. Nor does he seem to understand the Tricare and TCFL programs in general. I was paying the standard ~$540/yr for Tricare Prime for me and DW and this year with DW still on Tricare Prime and me on TCFL my premiums between her Tricare Prime and my TCFL are effectively $1500+ (270 for her and 1260 for me).

I am one of those that served and retired when we believed that one of the benefits for our sacrifices was free medical for life which was a broken promise when Tricare was started some 5 years after I retired and then Tricare for Life was piled on in 2001. I have up to now seen a zero benefit in TCFL except increased costs, but that could change in the future, but I'm still paying with increasing premiums now for something I thought was not going to cost me anything when I joined back in the 60s.

Larry

Yep, I choose not to mess with Tri-Care, that is my DW's job. My family is Tri-Care Standard, as we refuse to utilize MTFs, mainly because of the continuity of care. I know we pay quite a bit until we hit our caps....unfortunately, last year we hit our cap in DEC....hopefully this year we won't get there so fast.

When I do look to retire, I know I will have to get smart on it, Looking at your numbers though, you are paying close to $130/month, I will check with my buddies, maybe they had said 200/month, which is still a deal... I know the one painful thing about Tri-Care, they will always take second to another insurance, which sounds like why it was mentioned you had above about having to have Medicare.

My wife has insurance for her through her work, however, she is still able to see a couple of doctors that are paid for by Tri-Care...they are not part of her work's network...can you do the same, or does every doctor take Medicare B?

I apologize for the misunderstanding of Tri-Care, but the rest does hold true...

Cale

[Jim_Shoe]

GASP! You mean people lie? It started for me in boot camp. "We need two volunteers with driver's licenses." Two other guys beat me to it. They wound up pushing wheelbarrows full of dirt around all day.
It will never change and it isn't limited to the military, although they're very good at it.

[clikrf8]

Everyone is getting their benefits cut, even in the private sector. My husband worked at a local oil refinery for a contractor. Newly hired employees no longer get medical upon retirement (30+ years down the road) like those hired after 2005 or so, I believe. We are all getting hit. My husband's employer didn't have a pension but a poorly matched 401 (k).

[LarryJM]

AprilWhine wrote:

calewjohnson wrote:
I will say this, I am currently active duty, and have been for 18 years. While I believe that the benefits I was promised when I joined should be honored, I also believe that something has to be done to offset the costs of people and operations. Today, 60 cents of every dollar in our budget goes to personnel (retired and active duty). As we move into the future, that will not be sustainable. We (US Navy) currently have 285 ships, short of the 300 goal we would like to have, I doubt we will ever get back to that number since we do not have a conflict to support that size of a fleet.

From what I can say, there will be a change to retirement coming down the pipe. More of a 401k approach and not needing to stay for a full 20. Is it right? Sure, I know of a lot of folks who cut and run before the 10 year mark because anything more than 10, you may as well do 20. That kind of thinking has kept a lot of mediocre folks in, instead of the knowledgeable technicians I have seen get out.

Next thing, Tri-Care for Life….I may get blasted for saying this, but I think that the premiums should be increased for that benefit. Two really good friends of mine, both retired LtCOL types, pay only $200 or so a year for the benefit. A real steal for such a benefit.

There are many hard questions that need to be asked when looking at our benefits. A pragmatic approach will ensure we do not end up with the failing pensions like some large companies. We can stay on this course of spending and end up with nothing in the end, or we can start trying to fix the problem before it become unrecoverable.

Just my 2 cents.

Cale

Your friends are not being straight with you. 😉

Tricare for life does not cost extra, but you do have to have Medicare Part B. My hubby is enrolled and has been since he became eligible for Medicare.

Yep calewjohnson doesn't understand TCFL as his erronous statement about the $200/yr clearly demonstrates. Nor does he seem to understand the Tricare and TCFL programs in general. I was paying the standard ~$540/yr for Tricare Prime for me and DW and this year with DW still on Tricare Prime and me on TCFL my premiums between her Tricare Prime and my TCFL are effectively $1500+ (270 for her and 1260 for me).

I am one of those that served and retired when we believed that one of the benefits for our sacrifices was free medical for life which was a broken promise when Tricare was started some 5 years after I retired and then Tricare for Life was piled on in 2001. I have up to now seen a zero benefit in TCFL except increased costs, but that could change in the future, but I'm still paying with increasing premiums now for something I thought was not going to cost me anything when I joined back in the 60s.

Larry

[TurnThePage]

n7bsn wrote:

calewjohnson wrote:
I will say this, I am currently active duty, and have been for 18 years. ........................................... We can stay on this course of spending and end up with nothing in the end, or we can start trying to fix the problem before it become unrecoverable.

Just my 2 cents.

Cale

Someone understands the economics of the situation.

Sadly things can't continue the way they are going, which is part of why I decided to retire from the Navy nearly three years ago....and no I don't have the answers either

It's too bad a few more don't choose to perceive this truth. I still have a few years before I can participate, but I really look forward to taking advantage of Tricare and fully expect to pay more than the pittance currently required. I think the system has worked for most vets pretty well. Some, not nearly well enough, others entirely too well. That said, this current evaluation process is woefully inadequate.

[AprilWhine]

calewjohnson wrote:
I will say this, I am currently active duty, and have been for 18 years. While I believe that the benefits I was promised when I joined should be honored, I also believe that something has to be done to offset the costs of people and operations. Today, 60 cents of every dollar in our budget goes to personnel (retired and active duty). As we move into the future, that will not be sustainable. We (US Navy) currently have 285 ships, short of the 300 goal we would like to have, I doubt we will ever get back to that number since we do not have a conflict to support that size of a fleet.

From what I can say, there will be a change to retirement coming down the pipe. More of a 401k approach and not needing to stay for a full 20. Is it right? Sure, I know of a lot of folks who cut and run before the 10 year mark because anything more than 10, you may as well do 20. That kind of thinking has kept a lot of mediocre folks in, instead of the knowledgeable technicians I have seen get out.

Next thing, Tri-Care for Life….I may get blasted for saying this, but I think that the premiums should be increased for that benefit. Two really good friends of mine, both retired LtCOL types, pay only $200 or so a year for the benefit. A real steal for such a benefit.

There are many hard questions that need to be asked when looking at our benefits. A pragmatic approach will ensure we do not end up with the failing pensions like some large companies. We can stay on this course of spending and end up with nothing in the end, or we can start trying to fix the problem before it become unrecoverable.

Just my 2 cents.

Cale

Your friends are not being straight with you. 😉

Tricare for life does not cost extra, but you do have to have Medicare Part B. My hubby is enrolled and has been since he became eligible for Medicare.

[n7bsn]

calewjohnson wrote:
I will say this, I am currently active duty, and have been for 18 years. ........................................... We can stay on this course of spending and end up with nothing in the end, or we can start trying to fix the problem before it become unrecoverable.

Just my 2 cents.

Cale

Someone understands the economics of the situation.

Sadly things can't continue the way they are going, which is part of why I decided to retire from the Navy nearly three years ago....and no I don't have the answers either

[monkey44]

It's a factor of 'do it today' and don't plan for the future ... some other guy will be in office then, and "he/she" won't have to answer for it.

We earned the benefits - that cost has gotten out of hand due to mismanagement, and the guys 'they' don't need anymore pay the penalty - we earned medical and commissary, and now, it's not there.

We need to plan better - more long-range planning, not fix it now and hope for awhile. AND, the biggest issue - WASTE - send five men to do a two man job, that one trained guy could do alone. And buy six trucks, and rotate them. The six guys like that fine, so do the truck sellers - but we at least save gas when half sit parked each day. They could send one guy in each truck to the job - that would be worse.

Oh OH, don't get monkey started on this one.

We can only fix this with education - and what's called a voting tool.

[path1]

Francesca Knowles wrote:
Welcome to the Brave New world of "All Gummint is Bad Gummint".

I'm always surprised that anyone thinks that their own favorite Gummint Benefits will somehow prove to be immune from the scalpel!

Being brought up I was taught to respect them. Last 10 years...NO MORE

[Francesca_Knowl]

Welcome to the Brave New world of "All Gummint is Bad Gummint".

I'm always surprised that anyone thinks that their own favorite Gummint Benefits will somehow prove to be immune from the scalpel!

[Me_Again]

Just another case of the big guys ran away with all the money and they now want the average Joe Blow to repay it. Follow the money!

Chris

[wny_pat1]

i will not even go there! Chicken Hawks are the worse! Especially those who put down good honorable vets and go so far as to challenge their awards.

[calewjohnson]

I will say this, I am currently active duty, and have been for 18 years. While I believe that the benefits I was promised when I joined should be honored, I also believe that something has to be done to offset the costs of people and operations. Today, 60 cents of every dollar in our budget goes to personnel (retired and active duty). As we move into the future, that will not be sustainable. We (US Navy) currently have 285 ships, short of the 300 goal we would like to have, I doubt we will ever get back to that number since we do not have a conflict to support that size of a fleet.

From what I can say, there will be a change to retirement coming down the pipe. More of a 401k approach and not needing to stay for a full 20. Is it right? Sure, I know of a lot of folks who cut and run before the 10 year mark because anything more than 10, you may as well do 20. That kind of thinking has kept a lot of mediocre folks in, instead of the knowledgeable technicians I have seen get out.

Next thing, Tri-Care for Life….I may get blasted for saying this, but I think that the premiums should be increased for that benefit. Two really good friends of mine, both retired LtCOL types, pay only $200 or so a year for the benefit. A real steal for such a benefit.

There are many hard questions that need to be asked when looking at our benefits. A pragmatic approach will ensure we do not end up with the failing pensions like some large companies. We can stay on this course of spending and end up with nothing in the end, or we can start trying to fix the problem before it become unrecoverable.

Just my 2 cents.

Cale

[johnrbd]

Until the two political parties quit being afraid of extremist in their parties, NO negotiations and NO budgets will be approved. So, sequestration will continue to cause problems, especially for us in the middle trying to survive financially.

Off my box!