Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off.

Task Force’s Call For Tiered TRICARE Fees Opposed

The Pentagon-appointed Task Force on the Future of Military Healthcare wants to establish tiers for any new TRICARE fee structure, probably based on rank. That sounds like a bunch of socialists trying to find ways to redistribute retirement income.

Why should the cost of health care vary by rank? Since when is rank a fair measure of income level after leaving service?

If my family has to pay more for prescription drugs than some other person, then we’re being forced to pay part of the cost of that other person’s drugs for the collective good. That sounds like communism.

This is different from, say, the base golf course where an airman pays one price and an officer another. We know what our service incomes are and helping young airman save a few dollars makes perfect sense.

But retail prescriptions off base [or by mail order] should cost the same for every beneficiary. It is a false assumption that higher-ranking retirees continue to make more than someone who retires at a lesser rank.

The only way a tiered system become somewhat fair is if fees are based on taxable income as shown on annual tax returns.

FRANK SIPES
Colorado Springs, Colo.

Please advise the task force that, before setting tiered TRICARE fees based on rank at retirement, they should review changes in military pay scales since the 1980s. Active duty pay levels, on which retired pay is based, have increased significantly in the last several years.

Someone retiring at any rank today compared to years ago can earn hundreds of dollars more in annuities. So rank is not a “fair share” load for determining health care fees.

The cost paid by retirees should be based on a fixed percentage of their annuities.

BARRY G. MURRAY
Via e-mail

I understand that healthcare costs, in aggregate, are rising. I also understand that all of us must share in those increased costs. However, I take issue with establishing tiered fees based on size of annuity.

Rather than penalize me and others who receive larger annuities due to longer careers, or commissioned service which results from higher education and qualifications, I suggest an alternative: Set fees based on consumption of service.

I propose a tiered fee structure on a formula that takes account of behavioral wellness factors. It's no secret that smokers and persons who are sedentary, obese or have dangerous hobbies are overrepresented in doctors' offices and emergency rooms. When these “lifestyle” risks are known, patients receive wellness counseling. If they opt to continue their lifestyles, their TRICARE fees should reflect their choices.

This may sound unfair, but consider that we pay highway tolls based on how much we use the highway. We pay more to fill up a big car or an SUV. I pay for groceries based on what's in my cart, not what's in my bank account. And these are all factors based on choice.

We've been trying for years to get people to make healthier choices with only modest success. Perhaps a monetary incentive is what it takes.

DAVID K. HAZLETT
Major, USAF-Ret.
Via e-mail

How can anyone say that, as a 20-year retiree with both active and reserve service, I should pay the same fees as an officer who served 20 or more years and receives triple my retired pay?

I say no increases that are unfair.

CURTIS W. FRANDSEN
West Wareham, Mass.

GRATEFUL BENEFICIARY

Enrollment in TRICARE has been a godsend for me. I retired after 22 years’ service and until age 58 was very healthy. Suddenly my health began to deteriorate and medical expenses escalated.

I became aware of the comprehensive healthcare offered by TRICARE and heartily endorse the program. I will gladly pay higher fees as long as I am able to work. I don’t think there is a better program available.

GEORGE BERG
Sergeant First Class, USA-Ret.
Via e-mail

WORRIED

I am the widow of a military retiree. I support myself with income just above minimum wage. A raise in my TRICARE costs will be a hardship. I hope they consider all of this.

HELENE COMBS
Via e-mail

ANGRY

I find military and civilian leadership on TRICARE fees to be duplicitous and hypocritical. I have no objection to paying my way. I could support an honest attempt to resolve a legitimate problem. But there is no problem here to be fixed! This is a government that, having promised benefits, is trying to cheat retirees. 

First, it’s deceitful to equate military retiree benefits to those of ordinary citizens. The veteran has already paid in full for those benefits, often with our blood. Military veterans were paid extremely low wages for very high risk jobs and a major part of their compensation was to be free healthcare for life. They can prevaricate about how the promises weren’t in writing but that’s a weasel answer. The fact is that every recruiter in every service made it a selling point.

There doesn’t seem to be an issue finding money to support amnesty for illegal aliens and for paying their benefits! It seems the President and Congress are dead set on cheating veterans of their benefits so they can give steadily increasing benefits to lawbreakers who have earned nothing.

JAMES M. RALSTON
Command Sergeant Major, USA-Ret.
Via e-mail

I disagree with the task force’s contention that health costs for military beneficiaries have been flat for 11 years. Co-payment on some of our drugs rose just last year. Several of mine went from $9 and $15 to $22.

I agree that federal spending needs to be brought under control; I don't agree that military retirees should pay the bill.

TOM MOBLEY
Senior Master Sergeant, USAF-Ret.
Via e-mail

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

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.