Yet Senators Get Free Health Care – Or Do They?

I would like to know why senators and representatives get free health care when they also rake in so much money.

Don't tell me they could make more in the private sector. May be, but then they wouldn't get the bribes.

GARY YERDON
Senior Chief Machinist Mate, USN-Ret.
Via e-mail

Members of Congress are under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the same menu of health insurance and managed-care options offered to federal civilian employees.

Also, like federal civilian workers and retirees, lawmakers who elect to participate in FEHBP pay premiums which, by law, must be set to cover 28 percent of health benefit costs. That is more than TRICARE Prime users pay for their care. -- Tom Philpott

As a retiree with 30 years of service, I find the planned increases in TRICARE fees disgraceful. I keep hearing that Department of Defense officials are behind this. I would like to know some names. Probably the same officials are receiving free medical care.

PAUL W. SIVERSON
Sergeant Major, USMC-Ret.
Jacksonville, N.C.

Two are Dr. William Winkenwerder, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, and David Chu, undersecretary of Defense. Like other federal civilian employees, they are eligible for FEHBP for which they pay 28 percent of program costs as monthly premiums. Those premiums are to rise by an average of 10 percent in 2006 for enrollees. Recent FEHBP average premium increases have been 7.4 percent in 2005, 9.5 percent in 2004, 11.3 percent in 2003, 12.7 percent in 2002, 10.7 percent in 2001, and 9 percent in 2000. Winkenwerder points out that TRICARE fees and co-payments have not changed since set in 1995. -- T.P.

While I agree that TRICARE fees are much more reasonable than comparable civilian insurance programs, the planned increases are still an insult to those who entered the service in the 1980’s and before.

These military members were promised life long health care at no cost as part of the retirement benefits. To hear that TRICARE officials rationalize an increase by stating that no increase has occurred in the past decade is a slap to those who served and relied on the promise of life long health care. I understand this was never put in writing, but it was implied because healthcare for retirees was available at no cost, and recruiters and career counselors touted this benefit.  Good people who served 20 years and more deserve better from this country.

KAT DAWSON
Via e-mail

The plan to lump all officers into one TRICARE premium group and all enlisted personnel into another shows a lack of imagination and total disregard of differences in pay scales. For example, basic pay at 20 years for an E-6 is $2908 a month versus $4575 for an E-9. For a warrant officer at 20, basic pay is $3977 versus $7773 for an O-6. Some lower grade officers make less than upper grade enlisted and the upper tier of officer pay is well above all enlisted.

Why not just pick a certain percent of retired pay to be the premium and all grades would pay in relation to what they received?

This also would level out the various amounts retirees of the same pay grades receive in retirement pay. All retired E-8s, after all, are not receiving the same retirement pay just as all O-3s do not.

I am beginning to think Defense Department civilian leaders are clueless as to how the military is constructed.

HARRY WOOD
Warrant Officer 2, USAF-Ret.

I will retire in 2006 and do not plan to work. Under the current TRICARE program I can afford to live on my projected Air Force retirement because I have kept my expenses to a minimum. An increase in healthcare costs would be outside my projected retirement budget.

The proposed TRICARE increases are targeted at those who work and opt out of their employers’ health care plans. My situation does not fit this category. Can an exemption be made for those in my category?

Overall, the proposed increases are not fair to military retirees and their families.  They will erode our benefits. I suggest employers give the money to DOD if employees elect to use TRICARE. Employers now pay the nonmilitary health care provider for care. Why can’t they do the same with TRICARE?

Let TRICARE and the industry negotiate how they would handle this so the retiree doesn’t face an increase. Industry benefits from having a military serve this country. Let industry do its share to "pay back" or contribute to our benefit for having served them.  

DELORES HARRIS
Lieutenant Colonel
O’Fallon Ill.

I’ve read that the Defense Department cost for liberating Iraq is now over a half trillion dollars. We are spending money we don't have to improve the standard of living for Iraqis, a noble effort for sure. But this is not surprising; we habitually have spent billions on worthy causes.

Yet now we can't seem to afford to take care of our own military families and the heroes who have provided for the security and stability of our nation's economic and military might. 

The planned increase in TRICARE premiums is a drop in the bucket compared to the war budget, but they always seem to find the dollars for the war even if it means greater deficits.

Congress should not allow TRICARE premium increases.

RICH SHEPPARD
Lieutenant Colonel, USA-Ret.
Gainesville, Fla.

SBP PAID-UP RULE

Do you have new information on the paid-up rule for Survivor Benefit Plan premiums? Did the provision pass that would move the effective date?

I am 70 years old and have paid SBP premiums for over 30 years.

DAVID M. BUTCHER
Senior Master Sergeant, USAF-Ret.
Via e-mail

A provision to move the effective date of the SBP paid-up rule from Oct. 1, 2008 to Oct. 1, 2005 cleared the Senate but senators had failed to identify funds or spending reductions to cover the extra government cost. As a result, the provision was rejected by House-Senate conferences in December while finalizing the 2006 defense authorization bill. – T.P.

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com